Delhi High Court - Orders
Devesh Manaswi Das vs Aparnashree on 5 May, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta, Neena Bansal Krishna
$~ 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 44/2022 & CM APP 19980/2022
DEVESH MANASWI DAS ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Shashank Shekhar
Jha and Ms. Radha
Tarkar, Advocates.
versus
APARNASHREE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr.
Advocate with Ms. Sanya
Kumar and Ms.
Rakshanda Deka,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 05.05.2022
1. The appellant father of the minor child Master Arjun Manaswi Das, aggrieved by the order dated 5th April, 2022 dismissing his application under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act for restraining the respondent mother from arbitrarily changing the school and the city of the child, has filed the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 2005.
2. The facts in brief are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 1st July 2009 according Hindu customs and rights and one son, Master Arjun Manaswi Das was born from the said wed lock on 10th April, 2014. Differences arose between the parties and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 44/2022 Page 1 of 3 By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:10.05.2022 14:02:26 according to the appellant the respondent - wife deserted him without any intimation or reasonable excuse and filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956) for divorce along with an application under section 24 Section 26 of the Act, 1956 read with Section 18 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant moved another application under Section 26 of the Act, 1956 seeking directions for co-parenting of the child. He also moved an application dated 9th March, 2022 under Section 26 of the Act, 1956 for seeking directions for restraining the respondent from arbitrarily changing the school and the city of the child. Correspondingly, the respondent moved an application seeking directions for restraining the appellant from interfering in the process of issuance of Transfer Certificate (TC) of the child by his school.
3. Ld. Judge, Family Court vide impugned order dated 5th April, 2022 dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 26 of the Act,1956 for restraining the respondent from shifting of the child to the school in Gurugram, but the parties agreed that the appellant may participate in the PTMs and have regular update about the progress of the child. A Login and Password for the parental portal and other necessary details were also agreed to be provided to the appellant so that he could join the school group and have regular updates about the child. Aggrieved by the order, appellant father has preferred the present appeal.
4. It is not in dispute that the respondent along with the child had shifted out of the matrimonial home on 7th June, 2021 and since then Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 44/2022 Page 2 of 3 By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:10.05.2022 14:02:26 the child has been in her custody. It is further not in dispute that the respondent has got a new job in Gurugram making it inevitable for the child to be shifted from a school a Delhi to a school in Gurugram. The child was earlier studying in Heritage School, Vasant Kunj and has now been shifted to the same school i.e. Heritage School in Gurugram. It is quite evident that the school has remained the same and the education of the child has not been impacted in any manner. It may also be observed that the respondent had agreed to have the Login and Password of the parental portal and also to have regular updates about the education of the child. In no manner has the appellant been deprived of his involvement in the education of the child. In so far as his visitation rights and the request for co-parenting of the child are concerned, the applications under Section 26 of the Act, 1956 are pending for consideration before the learned Judge, Family Court, where the appellant may raise all the concerns in regard to interim custody/ co-parenting which may be considered by the learned Judge.
5. There is no merit in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed.
6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
MAY 05, 2022 va Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 44/2022 Page 3 of 3 By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:10.05.2022 14:02:26