Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal on behalf of husband-appellant Lt. Col. Gurmeet Singh has been filed being aggrieved by order dated 11.01.2019 of the Family Court No.3, Jaipur, dismissing his application filed for allowing him and his family members access to female child Nitmeher Kaur @ Feshika Singh.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that marriage of appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized at Jaipur on 03.03.2014 as per Sikh customs and rites. It was second marriage of both. The respondent-wife has a 17 years old son (2 of 12) [CMA-871/2019] from her first marriage. The appellant-husband was issueless from his first marriage. They remained together only for about 10 to 15 days. The respondent-wife filed a complaint on 16.04.2017 against the appellant-husband to the President, AWWA Central (Wife of Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi, stating that the appellant- husband was not available at Jaipur during her difficult time and neglected her. On 15.05.2017 the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were blessed with a daughter. The respondent- wife did not allow the appellant-husband to meet his daughter and therefore he filed a Petition on 20.04.2018 under Sections 9 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') before the Family Court No.3, Jaipur, for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed a complaint Mahila Police Station (East), Jaipur. A joint counseling was held between the parties on 18th and 23rd of April, 2018 and a compromise took place between them with the efforts of Mahila Surksha and Salah Kendra. Thereafter, the respondent-wife stayed with the appellant-husband at his place of posting in Kerala for ten days. After 13 days of returning from Kerala, the respondent-wife filed a first information report under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the appellant-husband inflicted physical cruelty against her during her stay at Kerala. The appellant- husband tried to meet her newly born daughter but the respondent-wife did not allow and made false complaints. The appellant-husband ultimately filed an application before the Family Court for grant of visitation rights to enable him and his parents to meet the child. The Family Court, vide impugned order, rejected the application. Hence this appeal.

(3 of 12) [CMA-871/2019] Heard learned counsel for the appellant-husband as also the respondent-wife.

Mr. Rajeev Surana, learned counsel for the appellant- husband submitted that the appellant-husband is a Lieutenant- Colonel working in the Indian Army and is presently posted in an operationally active area of Rajori in Jammu & Kashmir. He has been awarded commendation card by army for his exemplary service twice. The respondent-wife is a doctor in sociology and is an affluent business woman based in Jaipur. She wants to deprive the child from fatherly love and affection. The respondent-wife, just before spate of litigation and false allegation, filed the complaint, referred to above, in which a compromise took place. She also filed false and frivolous F.I.R. with allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty, which was never levelled by her in earlier complaints. The investigation in the said F.I.R. has been stayed by the Supreme Court.

It is argued that the visitation rights to child have to be given to appellant-father as per mandate of Article 39(e) & (f) of the Constitution of India. It is a common practice among couples to use kids as pawns in the game of emotional chess. It amounts to absolutely irresponsible parenting to scar children emotionally post separation. The innocent child is being used as tools of vengeance. It is argued that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has made an effort to promote the basic needs of children as fundamental human rights. India along-with 193 countries has also agreed to undertake the obligations of the convention by ratifying to it as on December, 2008. India is a signatory to the Convention and has ratified the same. Article (4 of 12) [CMA-871/2019] 51(c) of the Constitution of India clearly sets forth, inter alia, an obligation on the contracting States, to promote uniformity and predictability in the application of the Convention. Learned counsel in support of this argument has relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 19.03.2015 in AWAS Ireland Vs. Directorate General of Civil Aviation - Writ Petition (C) No.671/2005.

It is argued that the next ground given by the learned court below is the alleged behaviour of the appellant-husband with the respondent-wife, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. The complaints were filed by the respondent-wife against the appellant-husband through her advocate to the Chief of Army Staff. The crux of the complaints was that the appellant-husband (5 of 12) [CMA-871/2019] is a man of doubtful integrity and is threat to the nation and must be brought under strong disciplinary action. The complaints were examined by the senior officers who found that the same were ill- motivated and the allegation of torture or physical violence were found to be false. The allegations so made were overtly vague, frivolous, concocted and malicious.