Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Himanshu Chordia vs Arushi Jain on 20 October, 2021

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Sudesh Bansal

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                 D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 796/2021

Himanshu Chordia S/o Sh. Anil Chordia, Aged About 32 Years,
Permanent resident of Sohan Ghati, Near Mahaveer Bhawan
Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh (Raj.). At Present Posted In
Power System Operation Corporation Limited.
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
Arushi Jain D/o Dr. Anil Jain, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 502
Hitawala Tower, Near Celebration Mall, Bhuwana, Udaipur (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondent


Appellant-self            :     Mr. Himanshu Chordia



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment 20/10/2021 This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Family Court No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the court below') in Misc. Case No.387/2020, whereby the application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking interim custody of his minor son has been disposed of.

The court below has given direction to the respondent to provide details regarding school record of the minor son and also allowed the appellant to have video conferencing with his minor son for two days in a week through counselor. The court below has further observed that looking to the present COVID-19 situation (Downloaded on 20/10/2021 at 08:19:57 PM) (2 of 2) [CMA-796/2021] and taking into consideration the welfare of the minor child, it would not be appropriate to grant interim custody of the minor son of the appellant to him at present, however, the appellant can move fresh application seeking interim custody of his minor son after some time when the situation becomes normal.

Having heard the appellant and after perusing the impugned order as well as the material available on record, we don't find any case for interference.

Hence, this misc. appeal is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (SUDESH BANSAL),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J Abhishek Kumar S.No.34 (Downloaded on 20/10/2021 at 08:19:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)