ATUL PANDEY Vs. SHAILY BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued to the opposite parties but they have not appeared personally nor through counsel. Office report dated 11.11.2019 mentions that as per track consignment report of Indian Post Office, the notices sent to opposite parties no.1 and 2 have been duly delivered. Accordingly, service of summons upon opposite parties no.1 and 2 is held to be sufficient.

(2.) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.29/70 of 2018 under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act. The case was filed by the petitioner seeking custody of his minor son Ashutosh Pandey (opposite party no.2), who is stated to be living with his mother (opposite party no.1). It is noteworthy that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no.1 was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by Family Court, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh on 3.8.2017. It seems that on 29.3.2019, the petitioner filed an application stating that opposite party no.1 had entered appearance in the proceedings on 11.7.2018, but she had not filed her written statement so far, therefore, the court should proceed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. On 10.4.2019, opposite party no.1 filed her written statement alongwith an application for condoning the delay in filing the written statement and for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. She stated in the application that she could not file the written statement because of great mental stress she was undergoing upon coming to know that proceedings had been initiated by the petitioner for taking custody of the son from her. In the application she further stated that the petitioner had filed several miscellaneous applications in the proceedings and she remained busy in filing their reply and consequently, could not file the written statement. She also stated that she was not very well conversant with the legal intricacies, resulting in delay in filing of the written statement.

(3.) The trial court, after considering the application of opposite party no.1, declined to proceed under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and accepted the written statement filed by her. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition has been filed.