NILESH K.PATEL Vs. JAYSHREEBEN R.SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Principal District Judge, Valsad dated 02.02.2011 in Misc. Civil Application No.48 of 2009, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the mother, seeking her appointment as the Guardian of her minor daughter - Zalak. By the impugned order, the Trail Court further directed that, the respondent of the said application, who is not the husband of the applicant, but who claims to be the biological father of the daughter, would have visitation right. It is this order which is challenged by both before this Court in these two appeals. The original opponent has filed First Appeal No. 2675 of 2011 to the extent the mother is appointed as the guardian of the daughter. The mother has challenged the order in First Appeal No.4499 of 2018, to the extent the Trial Court has granted visitation right to the original opponent, who is appellant in First Appeal No.2675 of 2011.

(2.) Mr.Sunit Shah, learned advocate for Mr. B.K.Raj, learned advocate for the appellant of First Appeal No.2675 of 2011 and the respondent in First Appeal No.4499 of 2018, has submitted that, the Trial Court has committed an error by appointing the mother as the Guardian of the minor daughter - Zalak. He has further submitted that, the appellant being fit and competent to be appointed as the Guardian of the minor daughter, the mother could not have been appointed as the Guardian. It is additionally submitted that the daughter - Zalak is a British citizen and holding British passport, therefore there would be a situation of conflict of International Laws, viz. the Indian Laws vis-a-vis the British Laws and hence the impugned order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Valsad also suffers from lack of jurisdiction.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Pathan, learned advocate for the mother and the child - the appellants of First Appeal No.4499 of 2018 and the respondent of First Appeal No.2675 of 2011 has submitted that, the appeal filed by the mother and the child is only to the extent of opposing the visitation right to the respondent - Mr. Nileshbhai Kantilal Patel. He has submitted that the respondent is only a biological father of the minor child and the child is residing happily with the mother - Jayshreeben, who is the wife of Mr.Rakeshbhai Shah. Mr.Rakeshbhai Shah and Ms. Jayshreeben are residing together with the daughter - Zalak. It is further submitted that, the appellant and her husband - Mr.Rakeshbhai Shah are taking good care of minor daughter - Zalak. It is further submitted that the date of birth of the child is 25.07.2008 and has set in Menarche by this time and she undergoes that Menstrual Cycle. It is submitted that it is not convenient to her to live with the respondent during her vacations, as ordered by the Trial Court and therefore it is not proper to give visitation right to the respondent - Mr. Nileshbhai Kantilal Patel. It is submitted that First Appeal No. 2675 of 2011 be dismissed and First Appeal No. 4499 of 2018 be allowed.