SUMEDHA NAGPAL Vs. GAURAV NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this revision petition relates to the interpretation of the phrase 'long holidays/vacations covering more than two weeks'. The context in which this question has arisen is a dispute regarding visitation rights of a minor child between his mother and father. Vide judgment dated 19.11.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided this issue in the following terms :- "(1) During long holidays/vacations covering more than two weeks the child will be allowed to be in the company of the father for a period of seven days. (2) The period shall be fixed by the father after due intimation to the mother who shall permit the child to go with the father for the aforesaid period. (3) For twice every month preferably on Saturday or Sunday or a festival day, mother shall allow the child to visit the father from morning to evening. Father shall take the child and leave him back at the mother's place on such days."

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court wherein the trial Court disallowed the prayer of the respondent for visitation rights on 3rd of March and 11th of March (on the ground that the examinations of the minor were underway) but allowed him visitation from 22nd March to 28th of March on the premises that the exams of the child ended on 16.3.2009 and school had to reopen on 1.4.2009.

(3.) THE petitioner has asserted that a perusal of the circular quoted above would clearly show that the vacations are only from 23.3.2009 to 31.3.2009 and, therefore, the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the child shall be sent to the respondent for one week in a vacation lasting more than two weeks would not be applicable.