Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 30 (JHR)

Ganesh Kumar Singh v. Anita Devi

2015-01-07

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order Aggrieved by order dated 06.06.2012 in Matrimonial Suit No.145 of 2008, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Order dated 18.12.2014 records that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his minor son would be present in the Court on 07.01.2015 and accordingly, the parties and their minor son are present in the Court today. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the son of the petitioner has been admitted at a school at Jamshedpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the ordersheet of the trial court bearing signature of the minor son of the petitioner and submits that the respondent has been meeting her son in the court premises and thus, order dated 06.06.2012 has been complied with by the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of the past violent conduct of the respondent, the petitioner is apprehensive in disclosing the name of the school, where his son has been admitted presently. He prays that insofar as, the direction in order dated 06.06.2012 permitting the respondent to meet her son in the premises of Bistupur police station, Jamshedpur is concerned, that part may be modified by this Court and the respondent may be permitted to meet her minor son in the premises of the Civil Court, Jamshedpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that now since the son of the petitioner is admitted in a school at Jamshedpur and the respondent has been meeting her son in the Court premises, the petitioner has no objection insofar as, direction contained in order dated 06.06.2012 permitting the respondent to meet her son on 2nd Sunday of each month for 3 hours is concerned. The learned counsel for the respondent denies that the respondent has been meeting her son and it is submitted that order dated 06.06.2012 passed by the civil court has not been complied by the petitioner and therefore, the custody of the minor son be given to the respondent. 4. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Insofar as, direction contained in order dated 06.06.2012 permitting the respondent to meet her son on 2nd Sunday on each month is concerned, this part of the order is admitted by both the parties. 4. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Insofar as, direction contained in order dated 06.06.2012 permitting the respondent to meet her son on 2nd Sunday on each month is concerned, this part of the order is admitted by both the parties. The only dispute is whether in the past, the petitioner has permitted his son to meet his mother as ordered vide order dated 06.06.2012. The ordersheet of the trial court produced by the counsel for the petitioner reflects the signature of the minor son, who was present in the court on 24.11.2014. The order dated 16.09.2014, a copy of which has also been produced in the Court, does not reflect any grievance of the respondent that the petitioner has not permitted her to meet her minor son. The petitioner, who is present in the Court stated that he has no objection permitting his son to meet his mother however, it is submitted that the place of meeting may be changed from police station to the premises of the civil court at Jamshedpur. I am of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner for shifting the place of meeting is not unreasonable and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent would meet her minor child on 2nd Sunday of each month for 3 hours between 11 Am to 1 Pm in the Chamber of the Registrar of the Civil Court, Jamshedpur or in a place provided by the Registrar. The minor child of the parties is also present in the Court and he has not spoken well about his mother and therefore, I acceded the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner not to disclose the name of the school, where the minor child is studying. Moreover, I am of the opinion that if the minor son of the respondent is so attached with his mother, he on his own may disclose the name of the school, where he is presently studying and therefore, no direction is required to be issued to the petitioner to disclose the name of the school, where the minor son is studying. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above modification and observation. Accordingly, I.A. No.1781 of 2014, which was filed for vacating the stay of order dated 02.07.2013, is also disposed of. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above modification and observation. Accordingly, I.A. No.1781 of 2014, which was filed for vacating the stay of order dated 02.07.2013, is also disposed of. Petition disposed of.