ATSI Vs. DHIREN KIRANBHAI SHAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned advocate Mr. Amrish K. Pandya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. Petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2011. By such impugned order, respondent was allowed to visit the minor son Aditya in custody of the petitioner. Similar application with similar prayer was preferred by the petitioner before the Metropolitan Court so far as visiting right of other son of the parties, Yash is concerned. However, it was rejected. One more application under Section 6 of the Guardian and Wards Act is also preferred by present petitioner is pending for 18 months which gives rise to present Revision Application.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Amrish K. Pandya for the respondent No. 2. Perused the record. Considering the dispute between the parents that they desired to remain in touch with their children. Both the parties were asked to settle the dispute amicably. However, so far as dispute between the husband and wife is concerned that matter was referred to Mediation Centre, the Mediator has vide his order dated 21.03.2013 conveyed that parties have failed to resolve their dispute amicably and therefore matter was referred back to the Court.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that petitioner and respondent No. 1 have married to each other and they have two sons namely Yash and Aditya. It is not disputed that elder son Yash is with the husband, whereas younger son Aditya is with the petitioner wife. So as to consider the possibility of settlement not immediately then at any time and on persuasion of this Court now both the parties have agreed and undertake. Thereby respondent - husband has filed an affidavit that since both the parties intends to meet children and to see that both the children can meet each other and to resolve the dispute about the visiting right of the children irrespective of other legal right under any other law, respondent No. 1 will remained present with the minor son Yash on every meeting, if petitioner is agrees to undertake to comply with the order passed by the Court No. 22, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad on 28.09.2012. Practically, this order dated 28.09.2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 349 of 2011 preferred by the respondent No. 1 has been challenged in the present petition, wherein the Court has permitted the respondent No. 1 - husband to meet his son Aditya once in a week on Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the office of the Protection Officer with further directions to the present petitioner that she and her family members shall allow the respondent No. 1 - husband to meet his son Aditya.