Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Anya Agrawal vs Priyanka Agrawal on 16 December, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68107
1 CRR-5842-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5842 of 2025
KU. ANYA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
PRIYANKA AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Mr. Manoj Sharma - learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Vaishnavi Rao - learned
counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anurag Maheshwari - learned Sr. Advocate (through video conferencing)
along with Shri Raman Choubey - learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
The only short dispute as raised by the applicant No.1 is that although her Advocate had consented to the visitation right in order dated 17.10.2025 while representing through Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma but there cannot be any consent, which is not permissible by law. Consent has to be voluntarily and lawful and when she came to know she objected because this was not her implied or express consent, therefore, she filed this revision whereas learned counsel for the respondent appearing through video conferencing first raised the issue of consent but very fairly admitted during the course of hearing that consent has to be within the four corners of law.
Considered the arguments by both the learned Sr. Counsel for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 17-12-2025 12:18:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68107 2 CRR-5842-2025 parties and perused the record.
In the case of Sanjay Sharma Vs. Geeta and another, CRL. REV. P. 73/2022, CRL. M.A. 24053/2023, vide order dated 21.11.2025 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under :-
"3.5. Without prejudice to the above, it is also submitted that the Family Court ought, at the very least, to have considered and decided the Petitioner's request for visitation rights, particularly when he has consistently expressed willingness to maintain his minor daughter. Reliance is placed on Manpreet Singh Bharia v. Sumita Bhatia 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5598, to contend that a father who is prepared to shoulder financial responsibility for his child should ordinarily not be denied an opportunity to maintain contact with her. On this basis too, it is urged that the impugned order warrants interference.
*****
10. As regards visitation rights, this Court finds no error in the Family Court's approach. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are limited to determining neglect and award of maintenance. Matters pertaining to custody and visitation fall outside the statutory scope of Section 125 CrPC. The omission to separately adjudicate visitation cannot render the impugned order unsustainable. Needless to state, the Petitioner remains at liberty to seek appropriate relief before the competent court."
As this revision is supported by the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and there is no other relevant citation to controvert this legal position, therefore, the condition in the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 17-12-2025 12:18:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68107 3 CRR-5842-2025 regarding visitation right is set aside.
Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE VSG Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 17-12-2025 12:18:09