Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Malviya vs Sonu Malviya on 16 January, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 MA-10005-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
MA No. 10005 of 2025
(DHARMENDRA MALVIYA Vs SONU MALVIYA )
Dated : 16-01-2026
Shri Manish Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Kunjan Mittal, counsel for the respondent.
Heard on I.A.No. 612/2026 which is application for amendment in the cause title.
At the outset, counsel for appellant prays for withdrawal of the amendment application.
In view of aforesaid, I.A.No. 612/2026 is dismissed as withdrawn. The present appeal is filed under section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore whereby the visitation rights have been granted to the respondent.
Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that appeal under section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act is not maintainable as it is only against the order of visitation rights conferred to the respondents.
Counsel for the appellant submits that visitation rights will be part of custody under section 25 of the Act,hence the appeal is maintainable.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to refer the provisions of section 47 of the Act which is reproduced herein :
47. Orders appealable .-- An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by a Court,--
(a) under section 7, appointing or declaring or refusing to appoint or declare a guardian; or, (b) under section 9, sub-section (3), returning an application ; or,
(c) under section 25, making or refusing to make an order for the return Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA KOUSHAL Signing time: 16-Jan-26 5:18:56 PM 2 MA-10005-2025 of a ward to the custody of his guardian; or,
(d) under section 26, refusing leave for, the removal of a ward from the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or imposing conditions with respect thereto; or,
(e) under section 28 or section 29, refusing permission to a guardian to do an act referred to in the section; or,
(f) under section 32, defining, restricting or extending the powers of a guardian ; or,
(g) under section 39, removing a guardian ; or,
(h) under section 40, refusing to discharge a guardian; or,
(i) under section 43, regulating the conduct or proceedings of a guardian or settling a matter in difference between joint guardians, or enforcing the order ; or,
(j) under section 44 or section 45, imposing a penalty.
The Apex Court in the case of Roxann Sharma Vs. Arun Sharma, 2015(8) SCC 318 has considered the aforesaid legal question regarding maintainability of appeal against the order of visitation rights and held that the visitation right is inseparable from the custody and it is integrated part of the custody, therefore, the order of visitation right would be treated order under section 25, and therefore, the appeal would be maintainable under section 47(c) of Guardian and Wards Act.
In view of aforesaid,the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for respondent is rejected and appeal is held to be maintainable.
List for hearing on admission in the next week.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 16-Jan-26
5:18:56 PM