Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 602 (KAR)

Devdatta Banerjee v. Seema Trivedi

2020-03-02

R.DEVDAS

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The grievance of the petitioner - father is that respondent mother has violated some of the conditions imposed in the Memorandum of Agreement settled before the Mediation Centre and recorded in terms of Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru in MC No.2415/2009 on 25.03.2011. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that clause condition Nos.(vii) and (viii) in para No.3 of the Agreement at Annexure-A are as follows; vii) In case of any medical or other emergencies, the non-present parent must be informed immediately. viii) All major decisions regarding the minor daughter including but not restricted to her education, location of residence, travel abroad should be made in consultation with the other parent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the minor daughter is undergoing some difficulty and therefore, the child has been taken to a Therapist, while the petitioner is kept in dark. Moreover, it is submitted that the respondent was not available in the residence along with daughter, for more than a period of three weeks without any intimation to the petitioner. 3. As directed by this Court on 20.02.2020, the learned counsel for respondent has made available the medical reports, details of consultation and medicines given to the child, in sealed cover along with a memo dated 02.03.2020 and the same is taken on record. 4. On hearing the learned counsels for petitioner as well as respondent, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner-father is that when the minor child is said to be undergoing certain problems and she has been taken to a Therapist, even as per the conditions imposed by the trial Court, the petitioner-father should have been kept informed. Therefore, the only submission that is made by the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner should be permitted to participate in the medical treatment that is given to the child, so that, the petitioner is also satisfied that the child gets the best medical attention and the father also can rest assured that the child is well taken care of. 5. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is required to inform the petitioner regarding the treatment of the child, the petitioner should also be permitted to participate in the proceedings. 5. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is required to inform the petitioner regarding the treatment of the child, the petitioner should also be permitted to participate in the proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to know what treatment the child is receiving and this, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be considered unreasonable. It is also the responsibility of the respondent to keep the petitioner informed if there is any change in the location. Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is not aware as to where the respondent is now living along with child, this Court directs the respondent to inform the petitioner in writing regarding the present place or location along with telephone numbers. Respondent is also required to inform as to where the child is taken for treatment and who is treating the child. On the next occasion, when the child is taken to Therapist or Doctor, the petitioner also should be informed of the time and place to enable the petitioner to be present at the time of treatment of the child. 6. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not insist for change of treatment, unless and until the petitioner discuss the matter with the present Therapist or Doctor who is treating the minor child and ultimately, it is the opinion of the treating Doctor or Therapist which should prevail. 7. The apprehension of the respondent mother that if the petitioner is permitted to participate in the proceedings before the Doctor or Therapist, he will interfere in every aspect of the treatment and there are certain things that cannot be discussed in the presence of the father, is understandable. Ultimately, it is for the Doctor or Therapist to suggest that there are certain things that cannot be discussed in the presence of the father. Therefore, it is for the Doctor or a Therapist who is treating the child to inform the petitioner that when certain things cannot be discussed in his presence, the petitioner should excuse himself under such circumstances. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Learned counsel for respondent is directed to serve copies of the documents produced today along with memo to the learned counsel for the petitioner. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Learned counsel for respondent is directed to serve copies of the documents produced today along with memo to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is also directed not to disclose the contents of these documents to any other person since this document is meant only for the parents in the interest of the minor child.