SUMIT MILAP BHANSALI Vs. KAVITA MOHAN BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order, the Family Court has rejected request of father for modification of the consent terms to the extent of increased access to the child aged ten years. It appears that the petitioner filed an application for modification of consent decree. Consent decree grants access to the Family Court six times in a year: five times physical access and once by video conferencing/skype.

(2.) In the application for modification of the consent terms, inter alia interim relief of granting access to the father more than the access granted in consent terms is prayed for. Two applications were filed before the Family Court: one seeking access during Christmas vacation; and in the second application, the petitioner prayed for various reliefs from paragraphs 39(b) to 39(y) along with Annexure-A. The Trial Court by order dtd. 19/5/2023 considers prayer for grant of interim relief regarding access/ visitation rights of the child. The Trial Court accepts the position of law that order of custody of minor child is temporary in nature and can be modified if there is change in circumstance but holds that unless and until petitioner proves change in circumstance that it will be in the interest of child to modify or vary the consent terms, relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at interim stage.

(3.) On perusal of the order, it appears that the Trial Court has made some wide observations regarding nature of interim relief which can be passed by the Family Court while considering application for modification of terms relating to custody/access/ visitation of the child.