GURMEET SINGH Vs. REKHA RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on behalf of husband-appellant Lt. Col. Gurmeet Singh has been filed being aggrieved by order dated 11.01.2019 of the Family Court No.3, Jaipur, dismissing his application filed for allowing him and his family members access to female child Nitmeher Kaur @ Feshika Singh.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that marriage of appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized at Jaipur on 03.03.2014 as per Sikh customs and rites. It was second marriage of both. The respondent-wife has a 17 years old son from her first marriage. The appellant-husband was issueless from his first marriage. They remained together only for about 10 to 15 days. The respondent-wife filed a complaint on 16.04.2017 against the appellant-husband to the President, AWWA Central (Wife of Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi, stating that the appellant- husband was not available at Jaipur during her difficult time and neglected her. On 15.05.2017 the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were blessed with a daughter. The respondent- wife did not allow the appellant-husband to meet his daughter and therefore he filed a Petition on 20.04.2018 under Sections 9 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') before the Family Court No.3, Jaipur, for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed a complaint Mahila Police Station (East), Jaipur. A joint counseling was held between the parties on 18th and 23rd of April, 2018 and a compromise took place between them with the efforts of Mahila Surksha and Salah Kendra. Thereafter, the respondent-wife stayed with the appellant-husband at his place of posting in Kerala for ten days. After 13 days of returning from Kerala, the respondent-wife filed a first information report under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the appellant-husband inflicted physical cruelty against her during her stay at Kerala. The appellant- husband tried to meet her newly born daughter but the respondent-wife did not allow and made false complaints. The appellant-husband ultimately filed an application before the Family Court for grant of visitation rights to enable him and his parents to meet the child. The Family Court, vide impugned order, rejected the application. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant-husband as also the respondent-wife.