Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1080 (JHR)

Somnath Das v. Sheoli Hati

2014-11-05

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Challenging order dated 11.07.2013 in Guardianship Case No. 11 of 2012, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. It appears that vide order dated 08.06.2012, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in G.C. Case No. 11 of 2012 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, against which the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4753 of 2012. Vide order dated 7.05.2013 the matter was remitted back to the Trial Court for taking a decision afresh on the petition dated 28.10.2011 filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is presently working at Bengaluru in a Multi National Company and the daughter namely, Aditi Bishakha Das is presently residing with the respondent-wife and her family. It is alleged that the daughter of the petitioner is subjected to be atrocity, mentally harassment, poisoning of mind etc. against the petitioner and it would have adverse impact on psychological and mental development of the child. It is further submitted that the visitation right granted to the petitioner for 3 hours is not sufficient and in fact, by the act of the respondent-wife even the visitation period of 3 hours has been made ineffective and the petitioner would have no meaningful interaction with the daughter. The mind of the daughter of the petitioner is so poisoned that she does not even address the petitioner by saying Papa or father. The case is pending since long and it does not appear that it would be decided in near future and therefore, order dated 11.07.2013 is required to be modified to the extent that the petitioner should be granted visitation right on last Sunday of every Month. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent refers to the proceeding in 19.12.2009 before the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and submits that before the JHALSA, the parties agreed that the petitioner would meet the child once in every two month between 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 a.m. The respondent moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1277 of 2011 seeking transfer of Suit No. G & WC No. 225 of 2011 from the Family Court at Bengaluru to Family Court, Jamshedpur and vide order dated 27.03.2012 the case was transferred at Jamshedpur. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of nine months however, it has yet not been concluded due to dilatory tactics of the petitioner. Both the parties have now examined their witnesses and the statement of the child namely, Aditi Bishakha Das has also been recorded by the Trial Court. The matter is fixed today for the report of the doctor and after the report is received the case would be fixed for final argument. In these facts, the order impugned by the petitioner does not require interference by this Court. 4. From the record, I find that though the application dated 28.10.2011 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 08.06.2012, vide order dated 07.05.2013 in W.P. (C) No. 4753 of 2012, this Court directed the learned Trial Court to decide the application dated 28.10.2011 preferred by the petitioner afresh. From the order dated 27.03.2012 in T.P. (C) No. 1277 of 2011, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the learned Trial Court to decide the suit preferably within a period of 9 months. It is not in dispute that the parties have completed their evidence and the case is fixed for report of the doctor. I find that parties have made series of allegations against each other and the child may become victim of the fight between her parents. In this situation status quo is required to be maintained. I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 11.07.2013 does not require interference and the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, in view of the long pendency of the case being Guardianship Case No. 11 of 2012 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.03.2012, it would serve the ends of justice if a further direction is issued to the learned Trial Court to finally decide the Guardianship Case No. 11 of 2012 within a period of 3 months from today. Dismissal of this petition would not prejudice the case of the parties as and when Guardianship Case No. 11 of 2012 is finally decided.