MANDEEP KOUR BIJRAL Vs. PRABHU PAUL SINGH DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A marital distress at times reaches a stage, where parents remain oblivious of its mental and psychological impact on their child.

(2.) As the factual narration of the case, from the impugned order and present petition would unfurl, the appellant and respondent No. 1 entered into wedlock on 14/4/2019 as per Sikh Rites and Customs and they were blessed with a female child, namely, Anahat Kour Dutta. However, the marital discord between the couple led to various litigations in different Courts. In the process, respondent No. 1, father of the minor, also preferred a petition under Sec. 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of the minor. During the currency of this petition, learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") vide impugned order dtd. 30/11/2023 granted visitation rights to the father and grandfather of the minor in the waiting room, adjoining the trial Court on 15th of every month for one hour, i.e., 12 noon to 1 P.M only and in the event of 15th being a holiday, the visitation rights were extended to the next working day. Learned trial Court in order to ensure that visitation takes place in a cordial atmosphere, appointed Ms. Leena Devi, Advocate as Commissioner to facilitate the meeting of the father and grandfather with the minor, subject to the payment of Rs.1500.00 as Commissioner fee, to be borne by the father. This visitation order has been called into question by the petitioner, mother of the minor, in the present petition under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 ("the Act").

(3.) The petitioner has questioned the impugned order primarily on the premise that since respondent No. 1 was not happy with the birth of female child and made an attempt to remove the minor from the custody of the petitioner during the pendency of the trial, therefore, he is not entitled to the visitation rights.