JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr. Rajan Patel, learned advocate for Mr.Bharat R.Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent, waives service of notice of Rule. Looking to the nature of the case, learned counsel for the respective parties have urged that it may be decided finally. 2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 18.04.2013, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Ahmedabad (“the Family Court”), below the application at Ex.66 in CMA No.94 of 2010, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner wife, for permitting the two minor children to spend fifteen days with her during the vacation, as well as Saturdays and Sundays, has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, the factual background of the case is that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner hails from the Sindhi community and the respondent husband is Sikh by religion. The marriage between the parties was solemnized at a Gurudwara according to Sikh rites. A son, Jaspal Singh, was born to them on 04.12.1996, followed by a daughter, Kulwant Kaur, on 05.03.2004. As stated in the petition, in November 2008, when her son was twelve years’ old and her daughter was fourandahalf years’ old, she was compelled to leave the house and go to her father’s house at Vadodara. The reason being that there was no peace and privacy for her growingup children due to the fact that the premises they were living in were an officecum residence, and all kinds of people visited / worked in the office. 4. According to the petitioner, in spite of the fact that she has a right to meet her minor children, being their mother, the respondent does not allow them to meet her. The petitioner, therefore preferred CMA No.94 of 2010, for custody of the children under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which is pending in the Family Court. During the pendency of the above application, the petitioner made an application at Ex.66, praying that the children be permitted to stay with her for fifteen days during the summer vacation commencing from the end of March 2013, as well as on Saturdays and Sundays. This application was made on 12.02.2013. The Family Court rejected the said application by its order dated 18.04.2013. Hence, the present petition. 5. This application was made on 12.02.2013. The Family Court rejected the said application by its order dated 18.04.2013. Hence, the present petition. 5. As reflected in the order dated 23.12.2013, of this Court, Ms.Shanu S.Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioner stated that she does not press the prayers made in the petition insofar as sending the children to stay with the petitioner for fifteen days during the summer vacation is concerned. However, she would be urging the Court to grant the prayer regarding the children being permitted to stay with the petitioner on Saturdays and Sundays. The scope of the petition, therefore, is to this limited extent only. 6. In the above background, this Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 7. Ms.Shanu S.Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the mother of the minor children, therefore, the children ought to be permitted to stay with her during Saturdays and Sundays. Though the petitioner has visitation rights and meets the children every Friday, in the premises of the Family Court after Court working hours, she has not stayed with her children since 2008, when she was compelled to leave the house. It is submitted that the respondent is sometimes irregular in bringing the children on Fridays for the weekly visit, therefore the petitioner has filed a contempt petition against him, as also a Police complaint. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working as a teacher and living in a rented premises with her father. She is in a position to take care of the children and spend time and money for them. It is urged that as the petitioner has a B.Ed. degree, she can also guide the children as far as their education is concerned. 8. It is contended that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the aspect that the petitioner is the mother of the children and there can be no harm if they are permitted to stay with her on Saturdays and Sundays. 9. On the above grounds, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the limited prayer made by her may be granted. 10. The petition has been opposed by Mr.Rajan Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent husband. 9. On the above grounds, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the limited prayer made by her may be granted. 10. The petition has been opposed by Mr.Rajan Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent husband. It is submitted that the petitioner has herself abandoned the children by leaving the matrimonial house when the minor daughter was only fourandahalf years’ old. The petitioner did not return despite the best efforts of the respondent. Earlier as well, the petitioner had left the house on many occasions and every time the respondent brought her back. It is further submitted that the respondent is earning very well from his business as a Labour Contractor. After the petitioner left the house, the respondent shifted to the house of his mother, with the children. His mother is no longer alive but his unmarried sister, who lives with them, takes vary good care of the children. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the children are studying in very good educational institutions and are doing very well in their studies. They are very well cared for, as the respondent can afford to give them a very good standard of living and all the necessary amenities and comforts required by growing children. 11. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the children are visiting the petitioner every Friday for one hour, and the respondent brings them regularly. It is the petitioner who, sometimes, does not turn up for the meetings. It is contended that the children are happy and well settled with the respondent and as they are meeting the petitioner every Friday, there is no further requirement for them to stay with her during Saturdays and Sundays. The children have lots of activities going on during the weekend, which would be disturbed. It is submitted that in any case, the children, themselves, are not desirous of staying with the petitioner on Saturdays and Sundays. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court thought it proper to speak to both the children and the parties, separately, in Chambers. On 11.07.2014, the children came to the Court at 4:00 pm. The petitioner and the respondent were also personally present in the Court. This Court has spoken to them all, alone. 13. The minor daughter of the parties is Kulwant, aged ten years. On 11.07.2014, the children came to the Court at 4:00 pm. The petitioner and the respondent were also personally present in the Court. This Court has spoken to them all, alone. 13. The minor daughter of the parties is Kulwant, aged ten years. This Court gathered from her that she is studying in StandardV in Eklavya School. She appeared to be very happy with her school and stated that she is very well looked after by her father and aunt. She further stated that in the school she is studying in, there are a great deal of extra cocurricular activities. Sometimes the children are taken on day trips to different places. She stated that on Saturdays and Sundays, she sometimes goes for other classes and does her homework. She is also taken for outings by her father. When asked whether she would like to stay with the petitioner on Saturdays and Sundays, her answer was in the negative. She stated that she meets the petitioner on Fridays for an hour, which is sufficient. 14. The elder child of the parties is their son named Jaspal Singh, aged seventeenandhalf years. He will be 18 years in the month of December, 2014. He is, at present, studying in the First Year of the B.Com. graduation course, in H.L. Institute of Commerce. While speaking to him, this Court found that he is happy and settled in his life and doing well in his studies. He said that he is busy with his studies and other activities on Saturdays and Sundays and would not like to spend those days with the petitioner. He further stated that he is happy and settled with his father and aunt. 15. This Court is conscious of the fact that the main petition for custody filed by the petitioner is still pending in the Family Court, therefore this Court does not consider it appropriate to dwell upon the merits of the cases of the respective parties. It is, therefore clarified that the ambit of this petition is only to the extent of permitting the children to stay with the petitioner on Saturdays and Sundays. This Court has, therefore, considered the matter from this angle only, after ascertaining the wishes of both children. 16. It is a settled position of law that while deciding custody matters, the prime factor that weighs with the Court is the welfare of the children. This Court has, therefore, considered the matter from this angle only, after ascertaining the wishes of both children. 16. It is a settled position of law that while deciding custody matters, the prime factor that weighs with the Court is the welfare of the children. In the present case, the son Jaspal Singh is aged seventeen and a half years and is very well able to understand the situation and is clear about his wishes. He appears to be happy and welladjusted with his father. He is also doing well in his studies. He has shown his disinclination for spending Saturdays and Sundays with the petitioner. The younger daughter Kulwant, aged ten years, is studying in StandardV. She also appears to be happy and welladjusted with her father. She is not so young that she cannot understand matters or decide for herself. She has also shown her disinclination to the proposition of staying with the petitioner on Saturdays and Sundays. 17. This Court has observed, after speaking to the children separately in Chambers, that both the children are studying in good educational institutions and are well lookedafter. They are both happy in their lives and state that their father and aunt take very good care of them. They are doing well in their studies and, as per their say, are busy with other activities, classes, and homework on Saturdays and Sundays. They, therefore, would not like to stay with the petitioner on Saturdays and Sundays. This Court has further observed that both the children have spoken voluntarily and do not appear to be under any pressure. They have spoken at length, however, this Court does not consider it appropriate to record any other aspect of the conversation with them, except that both of them have clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, that they do not want to stay with the petitioner on Saturdays and Sundays. 18. This Court has also spoken to the petitioner and respondent separately, but it is not necessary to record the conversation with them, as doing so may prejudice the case of either party in the main custody application. 19. The wishes of the children have been ascertained by this Court, as indicated hereinabove. They are studying in good educational institutions and are doing well. They appear to be happy with their lives and are emotionally and materially secure. 19. The wishes of the children have been ascertained by this Court, as indicated hereinabove. They are studying in good educational institutions and are doing well. They appear to be happy with their lives and are emotionally and materially secure. The children are meeting the petitioner every Friday, for one hour, in the premises of the Family Court. In the view of this Court, it would not be appropriate to force the children to do something against their will as to do so may cause them emotional trauma and adversely affect their studies and well being. 20. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, it does not transpire that the Family Court has committed any error of law or jurisdiction, while rejecting the application of the petitioner. The said order has been passed after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter. 21. As a result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs. 22. It is clarified that this Court has considered the matter only from the perspective of the limited prayer made by the petitioner. No observation made in this order be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, while deciding the main application for custody.