ANINDITA CHANDAN MUKERJI Vs. SUSHMIT SUNILKUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the wife challenging the order dtd. 4/10/2019 passed by Family Court, Vadodara below Exh.92 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.26 of 2017 whereby Family Court has permitted the respondent-husband to attend the Parents Teacher Meeting in the school where the child is studying.

(2.) It appears that because of strained relationship between husband and wife, respondent-husband filed Civil Misc. Application No.26 of 2017 before the Family Court, Vadodara for custody of his child aged 2 years and 3 months then. At the time of application, he also prayed for an interim custody by way of separate application and it was partly allowed permitting visitation rights to the respondent-Husband. In a further proceedings carried before this Court, the said order of visitation right is also modified. However, during the pendency of the said application before the Family Court, vide Exh.92 respondent- Husband applied before the Court for grant of 2 prayers, namely, (i) directing petitioner-wife to disclose the name of school with address where child is studying as also (ii) for attending Parents Teacher Meeting in the school as also the visit for ascertaining the progress and the education of a child being father and a natural guardian to encourage him in the extra curricular activities. It appears that so far as first prayer made in the application since it was complied with, there was no question of considering the same. However, for the second prayer, the learned Judge, Family Court, Vadodara vide an order impugned permitted respondent-Husband to attend Parents Teacher Meeting directing further petitioner-wife not to object or create any obstruction thereof. So far as rest of the prayer in the second part is concerned, it came to be rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) Mr.Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate, learned counsel assisted by Mr.Bhadrish Raju, learned advocate for the petitioner challenging the impugned order submitted that it does not satisfy even bare minimum requirement of assigning reasons and therefore, he assailed the same on the said ground. He has further submitted that even if it is an interim order, there has to be some reason assigned for grant of relief whereas it lacks in reasons at all. Therefore, he has submitted that the said order is required to be quashed and set aside. He has relied on two decisions in support of his aforesaid contentions. (1) Decisions in the case of Board of Trustees of Martyrs Memorial Trust and Another V/s. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 734 more particularly para-21 and 22 thereof to submit that what is required of any judicial decision is due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration and there should not be slipshod consideration or cryptic order or a decision. and, (2) in the case of Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja V/s. Maruti Corporation and others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 229 more particularly referring para 35 to 37 he submitted that as such, the order impugned may be an interim but some reasons to support the decision has to be assigned and reading the order, there appears only a conclusion and not the reasons and therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.