NIDHI DUTTA Vs. SOHIL DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -husband filed a petition under Sections 7, 12 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his minor daughter, namely, Raunaq from her mother Nidhi Dutta (appellant herein).

(2.) THE marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sonipat on 14.12.2006. From the marriage, the parties had a daughter, namely, Raunaq, who was born on 19.11.2008. She is living with the appellant, who is mother of the minor. There were matrimonial disputes between the parties. The appellant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she is getting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/ - per month, besides, Rs. 2,500/ - per month for her daughter. The appellant also lodged FIR No. 13 dated 03.07.2010 against the respondent -husband alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Women Cell, Sonipat.

(3.) IN the present petition for custody of the minor daughter, the learned District Judge Family Court, Sonipat dismissed the petition of the respondent -husband. It was, however, observed that the minor had been meeting the respondent -husband and his parents almost twice a month under orders of the Court and she had developed a good deal of intimacy and love for them as was apparent from the photographs placed on record. The learned District Judge referred to the photographs Ex. P7 to Ex. P47 and observed that the minor daughter Raunaq could be seen in a happy mood and playing comfortably and making fun with her father, i.e., the respondent herein and her grandparents. Therefore, it was held that the respondent -husband being father of the minor would have a right to visit and meet the minor, besides, have her temporary custody from time to time so that intimacy, love and affection between the minor daughter and her father (respondent) continues to exist. Accordingly, it was directed that the respondent -husband shall be entitled to take custody of the minor from her school on every third Saturday of the month after her school was over and return her custody to her mother (appellant) on the next day, i.e. Sunday by 4:00 p.m. If, however, the minor happened to be on leave on third Saturday, then the respondent -husband shall be entitled to take her custody on the next Saturday of that month or any Saturday of the following month. It was further directed that in addition to this, the respondent shall also be entitled to temporary custody of his minor daughter for a period of first fifteen days during her summer vacations spell; besides, he shall be entitled to her temporary custody for five days each after her annual examination in March/April and in December every year. The minor, it was held, shall be taken direct from the school by the respondent -husband and dropped at the house of the appellant by 4:00 p.m. after the requisite period was over. It was clarified that if, however, the minor was not comfortable with the respondent -husband, it shall be his moral duty to leave her back in the custody of her mother, i.e., the appellant. It was still further directed that it shall be bounden duty of the concerned school authorities to give the custody of the minor Raunaq in the aforesaid manner to the respondent -husband. The respondent -husband is to produce certified copy of the order passed by the learned trial Court to the school authorities for its compliance.