RAJAN JAIRATH Vs. MONITA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2192 of 2011 and 457 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. For reference, facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 2192 of 2011. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.01.2011, while deciding the application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act'), for interim custody of his minor children namely Abhimaniyu Jairath and Sakshi Jairath, partly allowed the same and instead of interim custody, the visitation rights were granted to the petitioner and the petitioner was allowed to meet his children in a month i.e. on every second Saturday of the month for two hours i.e. from 2.00 P.M. to 4.00 P.M. in the Court room itself. The respondent-Monita was also directed to produce the children in the Court for the purpose of meeting on every second Saturday of the month at 2.00 P.M., during the pendency of the case. It was further made clear that if any second Saturday happens to be holiday, then the petitioner would be entitled to meet the children on the next working day of the Court. In fact, the trial Court had allowed the visitation rights to the petitioner to see both the children and not one child.

(2.) Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed Civil Revision No. 2192 of 2011 for modification of the impugned order by praying that the visitation rights be liberalised by way of allowing the children to stay at his house at Chandigarh and he be permitted to take them to the trips and the interim custody of the minor children be granted to him.

(3.) Similarly, Monita Mehta-respondent (mother of the minors) has challenged the impugned order by filing Civil Revision No. 457 of 2012 for quashing the order. She has stated that the children are in her custody and the petitioner has not complied with the directions, issued by the guardian Court. It was further submitted that the minor children are neither ready to meet the petitioner nor the petitioner is ready to meet them, therefore, the impugned order should be quashed.