Delhi District Court
Manish Sinha S/O Late Shri K.M. Sinha vs Suruchi on 11 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR JAIN: ASJ03: SE: SAKET
COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 100/11
Comp. ID No. 02406 R0216002011.
Manish Sinha S/o Late Shri K.M. Sinha
R/o 180, Pocket B, DDA Flats,
Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi
..... Appellant / Husband
Smt. Suruchi W/o Shri Manish Sinha
R/o 20/501, Eastend Apartments,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
New Delhi
..... Respondent / Wife
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present appeal, appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 05.04.2011 and 21.07.2011 passed by the Ld. MM regarding visitation rights for minor child.
2. Appellant married the respondent on 05.04.2002 at Arya Samaj Mandir, out of the said wedlock, one male child Mitra Sinha was born on 13.08.2004, thereafter, the relations between the appellant and the respondent got deteriorated. Respondent alongwith the child started residing separately with the minor boy before filing of case under Manish Sinha Vs. Suruchi, C.A. No. 100/11 page no. 1 of 5 Domestic Violence Act. Ld. Trial court on filing of the application under Section 12 of D.V. Act vide order dated 05.11.2011 granted interim orders of the custody of child to mother. During the pendency of the said proceedings on interim application moved by the appellant for grant of visitation rights, Ld. Trial court vide order dated 09.05.2011 has granted liberty to appellant to meet the child on 2nd /4th Saturday. Thereafter, another application moved for taking the child to Sangala (H.P.) for summer vacation by the appellant. Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 18.05.2011 observed that the court has spoken to the child and found that the child is presently enjoying the summer camp and does not want to go alongwith appellant however he wants to meet his father, and to stay with him, thereafter, in these circumstances, earlier visitation rights till summer vacation are modified and appellant is granted visitation rights for every Saturday and Sunday. The appellant is directed to pick up the child on Saturday and to drop him on Sunday evening. Thereafter, another application was moved by appellant for modifying the order dated 18.05.2011 to the extent of extending that arrangement after vacation period. However, Ld. Trial Court declined to modify the order and vide impugned order dated 21.07.2011, only granted the visitation rights to the appellant for every 2nd and 4th Saturday, by directing to pick up the child at 10.00 a.m. on 2nd/4th Saturday and drop him back on the Sunday evening.
3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that respondent has taken away Manish Sinha Vs. Suruchi, C.A. No. 100/11 page no. 2 of 5 the child illegally before filing of the case under D V Act, Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submits that the child enjoys the company of appellant, and this fact is duly observed by the ld. Trial court vide order dated 18.05.2011. Ld. Counsel for appellant further submits that appellant being father also entitled to enjoy the company of child, therefore, submitted that appellant be given the visiting rights on every weekend i.e, to pick the child on evening of every Saturday and drop him on the Sunday evening.
4. Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that the child is living with mother and respondent is already enjoying visiting rights of the child on every 2nd and 4th Saturday in terms of order dated 21.07.2011 and the visiting rights for the four weekends were granted vide order dated 18.05.2011 only because of the summer vacations of the child and ld. Trial lcourt vide impugned order dated 21.07.2011 rightly declined to modify the said order because the studies of child will also suffer if he accompany appellant on every weekend. Ld. Counsel for respondent further submits that the visiting rights application for all weekends of the month is already dismissed by the court of Shri R. K. Mattu, Ld. ADJ, Karkardooma in application u/s. 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, therefore, nothing remains in the present appeal.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The main contention as raised by the respondent is that vide order dated 18.05.2011, ld. trial court observed that child enjoys the Manish Sinha Vs. Suruchi, C.A. No. 100/11 page no. 3 of 5 company of father, therefore, granted interim visiting rights on four weekends during the month and there comes nothing that any harm is caused to the child by the appellant. However, ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the visiting rights granted for two weekends are duly complied and granting of visiting rights on four weekends is not at all practicable and have adverse impact on the studies of the child. Further the Guardianship court also declined the prayer of granting visiting right to the appellant for four weekends.
7. As per order dated 18.05.2011, the ld. Court granted visiting rights to appellant for four weekends only because of the fact that the child was on summer vacations during that period and vide impugned order dated 21.07.211 said order was modified and visiting rights for the appellant was restricted for two weekends of the month. Ld. Guardianship court also not granted visiting rights on all four weekends on taking into consideration the age and busy schedule of the child. Thus, mere fact that child also enjoys the company of the father is not enough to increase the visiting days on seeing the entire facts and circumstances and welfare of the child.
8. In view thereof, I do not find any substantial reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the ld. Trial court. Hence, present appeal stands dismissed. However, nothing in this order shall prelude the Appellant to make any further application regarding visiting rights before the ld. Trial court in changed circumstances or other reasonable Manish Sinha Vs. Suruchi, C.A. No. 100/11 page no. 4 of 5 grounds and trial court to dispose off the same being uninfluenced of this order.
9. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to ld. Trial court forthwith. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
on 11th December, 2012 ASJ03/SE/New Delhi
Manish Sinha Vs. Suruchi, C.A. No. 100/11 page no. 5 of 5