Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 373 (KAR)

Ajay Rajasekhar v. Tripti

2014-03-20

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner filed G&WC. No. 153/2013 against the respondent on the file of the II Additional, Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, for appointing him as a guardian of the minor children viz., Master Dheer and Kumari. Mischa till they attain the age of 18 years and to grant him full custody of both the minor children. In the said case, he filed an application - I.A.No.2 for grant of an interim custody of the minor children. The application was opposed by the respondent. On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the Court below has allowed the application on 26.08.2013 by granting him the visitation right of the children in the premises of Bangalore Mediation Centre on 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month between 02:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner being the father of the children is well qualified and financially well placed to take care of his children and provide them with a good and health environment. He comes from a good background. His parents are ready to take care of their grand children as they are available in his home. The respondent is not taking care of the children properly. The Court below therefore ought to have granted the custody of the minor children to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the timing fixed for meeting the children at the Mediation Centre between 02:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m. is highly inconvenient. The Mediation Centre is over crowded on Saturdays. Therefore, it is impossible to spend time with the children. 3. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not taken care of the children at any point of time. He has riot cared to pay their school fee. The children are of tender age. Her daughter Mischa is an adopted child. The petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of the children. It is further submitted that the respondent is looking after their children very well. If the petitioner wants to visit the children in some other place, she has no objection to visit them at Bangalore club wherein she is a member. There is enough space in the said club and it is not even crowded. It is further submitted that the respondent is looking after their children very well. If the petitioner wants to visit the children in some other place, she has no objection to visit them at Bangalore club wherein she is a member. There is enough space in the said club and it is not even crowded. The respondent will facilitate the petitioner to meet the children. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner after taking instructions from the petitioner who is present before the Court submits that henceforth petitioner will pay the school fee of both children. The submission is placed on record. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel made at the bar and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein has filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty. Serious allegations are made by the parties against each other in the said case as also in G&WC. No. 153/2013. These questions hove to be decided by the Family Court while deciding the divorce petition as also G&WC No.153/2013. The 1st child namely Master Dheer is now aged about 09 years. The daughter Mischa is aged about 41/? years is an adopted daughter. It is well established that even while considering the grant of interim custody of the minor child/children, the first and paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the minor child/children and not the rights of the parents under a statue. The question of welfare, of the child has to be considered in the background of the relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. Having considered the contentions of the parties and perused the materials on record. I am of the view that it is not just and proper to give custody of the minor children to the petitioner. They are looked after by the respondent very well. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has directed the respondent to grant visitation right of the children to the petitioner between 02:00 p.m. to 05:00 p m., instead of granting interim custody. 7. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mediation Centre is crowded on Saturdays. The respondent has no objection for the petitioner to see the children m Bangalore Club. 7. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mediation Centre is crowded on Saturdays. The respondent has no objection for the petitioner to see the children m Bangalore Club. The timing fixed for meeting the children is also inconvenient. The timing to visit the children from 02:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m. is changed to 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. If the petitioner wants to visit the children at Bangalore club, he may inform the respondent two days in advance by a written notice. If he informs the respondent that he wishes to see the children at Bangalore club, the respondent is directed to take the children to Bangalore club at 11:00 a.m. and the petitioner is permitted to meet them at Bangalore Club between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. However, he shall not take the children out of the premises of Bangalore club. If the petitioner does not wish to see them at Bangalore club, the arrangement made by the Court below shall continue. The order of the Family Court impugned herein stands modified to that extent.. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.