Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Runu Dutta vs Chiradip Das on 10 August, 2015
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1 10.08.2015
.
Item No.10 C.O. 2853 of 2015 Smt. Runu Dutta Vs. Chiradip Das.
Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar.
... for the petitioner.
Technicalities cannot overweigh the substantial justice. The Court should not be swayed by technicalities in dispensation of justice between the parties.
The father has a right to see his own son after the spouse fell apart. The proceeding for custody of the child has been initiated against the petitioner, wherein she raises an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court.
Admittedly, the application could not yield fruitful result and the challenge is further made to the said order before the higher authority. Once the Court decides the point on jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage, it remains binding between the parties through out the proceeding until the same is set aside by the higher authority.
Merely because an objection as to the jurisdiction was raised at one point of time and having rejected by the Court does not take away the power of the Court to deal with other interlocutory applications in the said proceeding. It would be preposterous to say that once the litigant raises an objection on jurisdiction the Court should stay its hand until the same is decided by it or the order rejecting the application is carried to a higher authority.
2The Court permitted the father to visit the child on two weekends in a month and the instant application was taken out for visitation of the child on the remaining weekends of the month. The Court allowed the same, which, according to the wife/petitioner, is not in accordance with law.
The child is of three years old and, therefore, this Court does not find that the visitation of the father on each weekends of the month may become counter productive or go against the welfare of the child. The child may act as a bridge between the father and mother and may possibly restore the broken sentiments if the interaction is frequent.
This Court does not find any substance in the submission of the wife/petitioner on the behavior and the maintenance of the good and congenial atmosphere at the time of visitation of the father with the son except that the child is tilting towards the father because of presentations and food provided to the child.
This Court, therefore, does not feel that the impugned order requires any interference.
The revisional application is, thus, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
ab (Harish Tandon, J.)