PRASHANT KUMAR Vs. PRIYANKA CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.1.2021 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.3, Ahmedabad below Exhibit-5 in Civil Misc. Application No.39 of 2020. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has partly allowed Exhibit-5 application and while rejecting the prayer to grant interim custody of minor son Jaivardhan to the petitioner pending the CMA, visitation rights to meet the minor on every first and third Saturday of the calendar month at Mediation Centre of the Family Court, Ahmedabad between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. is granted.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and move in a narrow compass. The petitioner and the respondent happen to be husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites and rituals on 6.5.2013 at Patna in presence of relatives and friends. A son named Jaivardhan is born from this wedlock on 16.6.2015. He is, therefore around six years of age. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent sailed rough weather and they started residing separately. The minor son Jaivardhan is with the respondent wife. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application being Civil Misc. Application No.39 fo 2020 in the Family Court, Ahmedabad under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act (GNW Act for short) for permanent custody of the minor. He also took out Exhibit-5 application in the proceedings for interim custody of the child till final disposal of the application. As noted hereinabove, the learned trial Judge by the impugned order has rejected the prayer for interim custody, however, has granted the visitation rights. The petitioner being not happy with the impugned order has preferred the present petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Ashish Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manan Doshi, learned advocate for Mr. Kishan R. Chakwawala, learned advocate on caveat for the respondent.