Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 278 (JHR)

Sanjay Kumar v. Poonam Priya

2017-02-09

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : Heard the appellant in person and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.5.2014 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Guardianship Case No. 47 of 2010, whereby the claim of the appellant for getting the custody of the child, born out of the wedlock between the parties, was rejected by the Court below. The Court below, however, acknowledged the visitation right of the appellant, being the biological father of the minor daughter and gave the visitation right to the petitioner in the following terms : "It is directed that the petitioner clears all the dues of maintenance as ordered in Maintenance Case No. 75 of 2009 by this Court, the respondent shall make arrangement for meeting the petitioner with minor daughter at her residence for one hour at every two months, if need be the help of the police may also be taken by the respondent and the police personnel must be in civil dress, so that there cannot be any adverse effect on the minor daughter and this process shall be continued till six months, if, the situation remains conducive and friendly, the visitation period of one hour shall be increased to two hours for the next six months, if, the situation continues to be conducive and friendly, thereafter the matter will be considered by the Court for further extension of the visitation period." 3. This order was however modified upon an application of the appellant and the venue of meeting was shifted to the Mediation Center, Civil Courts, Ranchi, for meeting the child with the appellant-father for one hour, i.e., from 3.30 to 4.30 p.m. This visitation was continuing, but certain disputes arose in the same also. 4. Since, the parties are in a very strained relationship and the minor girl was also resisting to meet her father, by order dated 6.12.2016, we thought it appropriate to interact with the daughter, so as to ascertain her views directly and accordingly, we fixed the matter for 12.1.2017 at 3.30 p.m. in Chambers. On 12.1.2017, the appellant as well as the minor daughter of the appellant were present before us. We made interactions with the minor daughter of the appellant and we found that she was full of grievances against her father. On 12.1.2017, the appellant as well as the minor daughter of the appellant were present before us. We made interactions with the minor daughter of the appellant and we found that she was full of grievances against her father. She told us in presence of the appellant with tearful eyes that she was not ready to meet her father and whenever she met her father in exercise of his visitation rights, he used to give threatening to her and only talking about the cases. She also stated that the behaviour of her father towards her had never been good and his father had even been instrumental in getting her birth certificate cancelled, which was also required for her educational purposes. This fact was also admitted by the appellant that he had given application before the Municipality for cancellation of the birth certificate of the child. 5. Yesterday, when the matter was taken up, it was submitted by the appellant-in-person that taking into consideration the hostile relationship between the daughter and himself, he may only be given the opportunity to only see his daughter once a month at some place to be fixed by the Court, during which, he shall not even interact with his daughter and he will only see his child. He also agreed that if that much right is given to the appellant, he shall not even press this appeal, which has been filed for getting the custody of the child. The appellant-in-person also agreed that he shall get the another birth certificate of the child prepared and shall hand it over to the mother of the child. 6. The respondent was also present in the Court yesterday and after some persuasions, she agreed for giving the right to the father only to see his child at JHALSA, Ranchi, between 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., in presence of Member Secretary of JHALSA or any other official authorised by him for this purpose. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent shall bring her daughter to the Office of JHALSA, Ranchi, on last Saturday of every month at 4.00 p.m. and the appellant shall be allowed to see his daughter up to 4.30 p.m. This arrangement shall continue presently for one year. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent shall bring her daughter to the Office of JHALSA, Ranchi, on last Saturday of every month at 4.00 p.m. and the appellant shall be allowed to see his daughter up to 4.30 p.m. This arrangement shall continue presently for one year. The appellant shall only see the child, from some distance, but shall not interact with her, unless the child herself, after some passage of time, out of natural love for father, remaining if any, ventures to interact with the appellant. If the situation remains conducive, further direction shall be sought from Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Guardianship Case No. 47 of 2010, as it is stated in the impugned order that the matter will be considered by the Court for further extension of the visitation period, if the situation continues to be conducive and friendly. 8. It is made clear that if on any date, the appellant, who has to come from Hazaribag, may not be in a position to come to see his daughter for some unavoidable reason, or the respondent may be in difficulty to bring the daughter for some unavoidable reason, the prior intimation of the same shall be given by the respective party to the Member Secretary of the JHALSA, who shall communicate the other party about the same well in advance. For this purpose, both the parties are directed to give their mobile numbers before the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi. 9. In view of the submission of the appellant-in-person that if aforesaid visiting right is allowed to him, he shall not press this First Appeal, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed, with the directions as above. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary of JHALSA, Ranchi, for the needful. C.O. 2 of 2015 : As this cross-objection arises out of a maintenance case between the parties, it shall be heard separately. The Office is directed to re-register the cross-objection as a separate appeal and to list the same under appropriate heading after fresh stamp reporting, if so required. It is made clear that any final decision passed in this cross-objection converted into appeal, may be taken into consideration for considering the future visiting rights of the father of the minor girl.