Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1574 (PNJ)

Rajan Jairath v. Monita Mehta

2012-11-05

A.N.JINDAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J. (Oral) - This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.2192 of 2011 and 457 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. For reference, facts are taken from Civil Revision No.2192 of 2011. 2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.01.2011, while deciding the application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’), for interim custody of his minor children namely Abhimaniyu Jairath and Sakshi Jairath, partly allowed the same and instead of interim custody, the visitation rights were granted to the petitioner and the petitoner was allowed to meet his children in a month i.e. on every second Saturday of the month for two hours i.e. from 2.00 P.M. to 4.00 P.M. in the Court room itself. The respondent-Monita was also directed to produce the children in the Court for the purpose of meeting on every second Saturday of the month at 2.00 P.M., during the pendency of the case. It was further made clear that if any second Saturday happens to be holiday, then the petitioner would be entitled to meet the children on the next working day of the Court. In fact, the trial Court had allowed the visitation rights to the petitioner to see both the children and not one child. 3. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed Civil Revision No.2192 of 2011 for modification of the impugned order by praying that the visitation rights be liberalised by way of allowing the children to stay at his house at Chandigarh and he be permitted to take them to the trips and the interim custody of the minor children be granted to him. 4. Similarly, Monita Mehta-respondent (mother of the minors) has challenged the impugned order by filing Civil Revision No.457 of 2012 for quashing the order. She has stated that the children are in her custody and the petitioner has not complied with the directions, issued by the guardian Court. It was further submitted that the minor children are neither ready to meet the petitioner nor the petitioner is ready to meet them, therefore, the impugned order should be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments, as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was further submitted that the minor children are neither ready to meet the petitioner nor the petitioner is ready to meet them, therefore, the impugned order should be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments, as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that Rajan Jairath-petitioner is the father of minor children i.e. Abhimaniyu Jairath and Sakshi Jairath. Said Sakshi Jairath was born on 26.06.2002, whereas Abhumaniyu Jairath was born on 02.04.1997. The application under Section 9 of the Act is still under adjudication. The minors are living with their mother Monita Mehta at Chandigarh, whereas, petitioner-Rajan Jairath is residing in Flat No.302, Group Housing Society No.8, Sector 21-D, Faridabad. He being a Senior Manager in Central Government Public Sector Undertaking (NHPC Limited) at Faridabad, in all human probabilities, would not be in a position to spare enough time to look after the education, health, study and maintenance. The minors are in the care and custody of their mother and receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., from the petitioner. Both the children are school going and it is very difficult to dislocate them from the place like Chandigarh, where the education facilities are comparatively better than Faridabad, and send them to the place of the petitioner, where none is there to look after them at his back. 6. It may further be observed that the conduct of the petitioner, even after the visitation rights were extended to him, is highlighted from the order dated 02.01.2012 passed by the trial Court on the second application filed by Rajan Jairath-petitioner for extending visitation rights to him. In the said application, he prayed that both the children be allowed to stay with him at his parental house at Chandigarh and also to accompany him during Christmas holidays to Shimla. The said application was taken up in the Lok Adalat, held on 24.12.2011, where the respondent had come present with the children. Both the children refused to go to the place of the petitioner during winter vacations and had stated so, categorically, in the Lok Adalat. These facts reveal that the petitioner had not complied with the directions of the trial Court, which were issued vide order dated 19.01.2011, rather he has started setting terms with the Court. Both the children refused to go to the place of the petitioner during winter vacations and had stated so, categorically, in the Lok Adalat. These facts reveal that the petitioner had not complied with the directions of the trial Court, which were issued vide order dated 19.01.2011, rather he has started setting terms with the Court. Secondly, due to the long separation from their father-petitioner, they have lost interest in him and the Court has also to take care of the wish of the minors. However, the reunion could be made only, if the married couple settles with each other, which appears to be not possible at this stage. The children being matured enough, had made statements before the Lok Adalat that they are not ready to stay with their father. 7. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to entertain any doubt over the legality of the order and also the applications filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the minors time and again, rather he should focus and consider over rehabilitation of the respondent in his house, so that he may have the love and affection of his wife as well as the minors. However, still, in order to safeguard the visitation rights, the petitioner, if so likes, may request the trial Court to call for the children in terms of the order dated 19.01.2011 to have conversation with them. I also have no reasons to differ with visitation rights given by the guardian Court to the petitioner. 8. Consequently, both the petitions are hereby dismissed.