ABHINAY JAIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the father of corpus i.e. Respondent No. 3, Adarsh Jain who is residing with his mother i.e. Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has changed the name of child and his father's name in official records whereas admittedly Respondent No. 3, Adarsh Jain was born out of wedlock of the petitioner, Abhinay Jain and Respondent No. 2, Smt. Megha Jain. Further submitted that visitation rights should be granted in favour of petitioner.

(3.) Per-contra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the prayer, however, admitted the fact that names of Respondent No. 3, Adarsh Jain and his father, Abhinav Jain have been changed inadvertently in some official records which Respondent No. 2 will get it corrected.