Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[2.2] In the custody matter, in Civil Misc. Application No.67 of 2016, a compromise arrived at between the parties and joint compromise pursis was placed before the Court vide Exhibit-17 to the proceedings and consequently, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad passed the judgment and NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23694/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined decree dated 12.01.2017 in terms of compromise pursis filed by the parties. Some other litigation took place in interregnum between the parties whereby the present petitioner unsuccessfully filed the contempt proceedings as well as proceedings for the custody of the minor and ultimately, filed the Execution Petition No.4 of 2022 before the Family Court No.3, Ahmedabad for execution of the compromise decree arrived at between the parties. The Family Court, Ahmedabad by order dated 05.08.2022 pleased to dismiss the Darkhast by holding that the compromise decree arrived at between the parties is become unworkable due to subsequent development and since the petitioner remained unsuccessful in other proceedings, a compromise decree cannot be executed.

[3.4] Lastly, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Executing Court cannot verify the legality or validity of the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/23694/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined decree sought for execution, it remains binding to the parties and executable until decree is specifically disturbed or set aside by the Higher Court. He would further submit that in the present case, the Executing Court decided the issue as if it is sitting in appeal and believed that the compromise decree is non-executable. Such consideration of the Executing Court is uncalled, unjustified and according to learned Senior Counsel, it is in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Executing Court.

[15] The petitioner therefore has attempted at every nook and corner to disturb the other side - wife and perhaps become aggrieved once she got divorce decree and the daughter - minor 'J' lives with her, strongly resisting to go with the father. It is petitioner's own say that the order passed in CMA has been merged with the order dated 02.02.2019 in CMA No.43 of 2018 and therefore, it is a willful disobedience of the defendant - wife not to permit husband to visit the daughter. Then petitioner, having remained unsuccessful in all proceedings, filed execution petition to execute compromise decree which described by him either non-workable and against child welfare as is merged with other order. The petitioner changed version and submits differently on his convenience. The application of petitioner is therefore unjust and unfair.

43. The principles in relation to the custody of a minor child are well settled. In determining the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is the "welfare of the child" and not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in force".

[23] Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, according to this Court, visitation rights are also not absolute or permanent, they are inherently temporary and flexible, designed to adopt to evolving need of the child. The guiding principle is always the child's welfare. If visitation right no longer serve purpose, forceful execution of it can be refused. Thus, in the present case, the learned Executing Court has rightly refused to execute compromise decree and thereby has not committed any error. To be noted that the compromise decree is arrived at between the mother and the father, would not bind minor 'J' against her wish and she cannot be forced to meet the father, when she declined to meet which is reflecting from the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and revisited by this Court hereinabove.