OM PRAKASH BHARUKA Vs. SHAKUNTALA MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 9-4-92 passed in Misc. Case (G) No. 47 of 1991 by the Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was married to the respondent in the year 1975 and they were staying together till 1981 in Delhi. Out of the wedlock three children were born, one daughter (Nidhi) and two sons (Avinash and Anupam). According to the petitioner at the time of presentation of this petition, the daughter was aged 14 years 4 months and sons were aged about 12 years and 9 years 2 months respectively. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial home all of a sudden on 6-9-87 without any reason against his consent and without considering the welfare of the children and stayed with one Satya Narayan Gupta, an Advocate at South Delhi. After staying about six days with him the respondent left for Dibrugarh to stay with her parents.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition before the Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, for divorce and obtained an ex parte decree for divorce and also for the custody of children on 4-1-89. In pursuance of the order passed by the Additional District Judge a warrant was issued for taking custody of the children and seizure of movable, property (ornaments) from the petitioner. According to him, the Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, had no jurisdiction to issue the said warrant. However, the petitioner's children were taken away in pursuance of the said order passed by the Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh. Petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court against the ex parte order. During the pendency of the appeal, this court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report as to how the children had been looked after by their mother - the respondent. The Registrar gave two reports dated 26-8-89 and 1-9-89. In the report dated 26-8-89, the Registrar (Judicial) stated that he gathered the impression that the children loved their maternal Aunts and they had not been ill-treated by them at any time; and the allegation of torture etc. were not true. The Registrar further stated that the petitioner was allowed to meet the children in his Chamber. The petitioner was in his Chamber from 11.55 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. along with the children. In the second report dated 1-9-89 the Registrar informed this court that he did not notice anything unusual or extraordinary when the petitioner met the children in his chamber. The Registrar further stated in his report as follows :