Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravi Dutt Pathania vs Shivani Pathania on 9 May, 2018
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 104 of 2018
Decided on : 9.5.2018
.
Ravi Dutt Pathania .....Petitioner.
Versus
Shivani Pathania ....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Vijender Katoch, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Het Ram, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)
The relevant portion of the operative part, of, the impugned order, is, extracted hereinafter:-
"The present Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Section 151 CPC and Sections 7, 17 & 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for taking action against the respondent Ravi Dutt Pathania for disobeying the order dated 5.10.2017, vide which the custody of minor child was temporarily ordered to be transferred to the respondent on every Saturday and the minor was being handed over to the applicant/respondent on Monday to join the school and during holidays both the parties, the respondent/petitioner and applicant/ respondent were ordered to keep the minor for half of the period of vacation. As per order, the custody of minor child was handed over on 06.01.2018 to the father, who has not returned the custody of the child."1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 23:08:24 :::HCHP...2...
2. A perusal thereof makes a vivid display, of, a preemptory .
direction being rendered upon respondent-petitioner herein, to, hand over the custody, of, the minor child to his mother. The reasons assigned by the learned District Judge concerned, for, making the aforesaid direction, is, comprised in the factum of application, for, modification of an order pronounced, on, 5.10.2017 being sub judice.
3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, with much vigor, submitted before this Court, that the operative portion of the impugned order, is, in conflict with the earlier portion thereof, wherein the learned District Judge has taken a clear view, and, after his ascertaining the wishes of the minor child, of, his welfare and interest being optimally, taken care, of, by the petitioner herein.
4. This Court has considered, the aforesaid submission addressed by the learned counsel, for the petitioner/the father of the minor child. However, before proceeding to determine the veracity, of the aforesaid submission, it is also imperative to bear in mind, the factum, that, the order pronounced on 5.10.2017, only permitted the petitioner herein, to, retain the custody of the minor child, for, half of the period of vacation. The aforesaid factum is of utmost importance, as it, directly devolves upon influences, if any, as may be cast upon the mind, and, the psyche of the minor child, during, the period of his stay ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 23:08:24 :::HCHP ...3...
with the petitioner herein besides more importantly, of, whether in .
compliance or not with the order supra recorded on 5.10.2017 the petitioner herein proceeded to purportedly, legally or illegally retain the custody of the minor child. However, a reading of the impugned order, does not, make any disclosure of the aforesaid factum, being borne in mind, by the District Judge concerned. The effect, of his not, bearing in mind the aforesaid trite factum also directly impinges upon the factum of the petitioner, during the purported period, of, his purportedly retaining any purported illegal custody of the minor child, his purportedly casting influences upon his mind and psyche, hence, leading the minor child, to, make a statement adversarial, to his mother.
5. For undoing the aforesaid non application of mind vis-à-vis, the relevant and germane factum probandum, it is deemed fit, that the impugned order necessitates, its being quashed and set aside, and it being remanded, to, the learned District Judge, with a direction, to him, that after, bearing in mind, the aforesaid facts, his proceeding to pronounce a fresh order, in, accordance with law, within a period of three months, also, during, the period whereat the matter is sub judice before him, the order rendered on 1.5.2018 shall continue.
::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 23:08:24 :::HCHP...4...
"1.5.2018 In the interest of justice, till further orders, it is directed that the petitioner shall carry .
the minor child named Vedant, upto Hospital complex at Tauni Devi, where the respondent is residing whereat the respondent shall be permitted to see her minor child. An advance intimation shall be made by the petitioner about his visit, to the respondent, and, time thereof shall be at 4 O'clock, every day, upto 9th May, 2018.
6. It is made clear that prior, to, the learned District Judge recording any order on merits, he shall make an endeavour, to strike an amicable settlement inter se the parties at lis, through, the aegis, of, Lok Adalat.
7. Consequently with directions supra, the matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge concerned. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
Dasti copy.
9th May, 2018 ( Sureshwar Thakur ),
(mamta/priti) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2018 23:08:24 :::HCHP