RISHI AGARWAL Vs. DIPIKA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid applications being C.O. 755 of 2019, C.O. 528 of 2020 and C.O. 543 of 2020 are taken up together and disposed of by the following order, since main issue involved in all the applications are interconnected. CO 755 of 2019 has been preferred by Father / petitioner against order dtd. 5/2/2019 passed in Act VIII Case No. 17 of 2019, by which court below passed an ad-interim injunction restraining opposite party/mother from taking transfer certificate of the ward from La Martiniere School to any other school till 5/3/2019. On the other hand C.O. 528 of 2020 and C.O. 543 of 2020 have been preferred against the order, where court below allowed visitation right to the father with his daughter on every first and third week of every month in the court room from 2.00 p.m. to 3.00p.m.

(2.) In the said Act VIII case no. 17 of 2019, petitioner filed an application under sec. 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, praying for order of injunction restraining respondent/opposite party from taking the child outside the jurisdiction of the court, without prior permission from the learned court along with other prayers. In the said application it was alleged that opposite party is trying to procure transfer certificate from La Martiniere School to any other school and after hearing the petitioner and on perusal of the documents, the court below was pleased to pass aforesaid restraining order.

(3.) Mr. Uday Gupta learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned judge did not at all consider the other prayers in the interlocutory application which are very relevant at this stage. Learned Judge failed to appreciate that the order restraining the opposite party from taking the child outside the jurisdiction of the learned court without prior permission of the learned court should have been passed. He should have also passed necessary direction so that the custodian of the child, regularly send the girl to the school and he should have ordered that temporary custody be handed over to the petitioner for betterment and upbringing of the daughter.