PRIYANKA SETHI Vs. BHARAT SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 1/5/2023, passed in MJC No.33/2022 by the Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. Since the aforesaid order is also challenged by the respondent/husband in M.P. No.4665/2023, this order shall also govern the disposal of the aforesaid M.P. No.4665/2023.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/wife's and the respondent/husband's marriage was solemnized on 18/6/2018 at Ambala, Haryana. Out of this wedlock, they also have a boy, who was born on 7/11/2019, at Indore as the petitioner/wife is a permanent resident of Indore. However, a matrimonial dispute took place between the parties, and as it is alleged by the wife that she was expelled from the house of the respondent from Ambala on 17/1/2021 and thus, she came to Indore along with their child. On 19/4/2022, the respondent/husband filed an application under Sec. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1890') in the Family Court at Indore and on 16/2/2023, an application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 1890 was also filed to seek interim visitation rights of the child. The aforesaid application was partly allowed by the Family Court on 1/5/2023, as the respondent/husband was granted visitation right only on the date when the matter was fixed before the Family Court, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the Court itself. The case of the petitioner/wife is that she has shifted from Indore to Pune in the month of May 2023 itself on account of her job, and she also got her son admitted in a school at Pune. The grievance of the petitioner/wife is that it would be extremely difficult for her to come to Indore on each and every date fixed by the Family Court along with the child, who is already admitted in a school in Pune, and thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the interim visitation rights are granted to the respondent as prescribed in the Child Access and Custody Guidelines issued by the High Court, it would be difficult for the child to adjust with the respondent even for a day, as he is totally alien to the child as he has never met with the child. Thus, it is submitted that some such order may be passed so that the child may be acquainted with the father.