Arjun Sajdeh & Ors. v. Kamakshi Sajdeh & Anr.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed off finally.

2. The appellant - husband is aggrieved by an order of 01.06.2013 whereby the visitation rights and conditions attached thereto were spelt out. The parties to the present proceedings were married on 08.11.2002. It is not disputed by the partiesthat by an order of 14.09.2011 decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted. This was in terms of agreed settlement which recognized the guardianship rights of the wife, over the child Janvi - the minor daughter bom on 30.07.2007. At the same time, the husband's right to visitation was also recognized.

3. The impugned order arises out of an application under Section 12 of the Guardianship & Wards Act, by which interim custody and visitation in Page No.I + 2013:DHC:7891-DB respect of child Janvi was sought for by the appellant. The learned Judge has directed that the appellant would take Janvi for halfa day visitation on the first Sunday of each month from 2.00 p.m. - 7.00 p.m. in the presence ofthe respondent. It was also directed that the child could be picked up by her father from the residence of the respondent i.e. her mother at 8.00 p.m. on the second Saturday of each month and dropped back home at 8.00 a.m. on Sunday. During the course of the present proceedings, it was suggested to parties that so far as the visitation rights of the father, to take out the child every month once on Sunday from 2.00 p.m.- 7.00 p.m. is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the said visitation should be unsupervised i.e. the presence of the respondent may not be necessary. The respondent's counsel Mr. Mannan, after obtaining instructions, expressed concurrence to the proposal. It is also agreed by the parties that the trial court even while recognizing the agreement of the parties that the father would be entitled to take the child each Sunday and not only on one Sunday of each month, wrongly proceeded to record that he could take the child on the first Sunday, only, therefore it is clarified that the father i.e. the appellant, would be entitled to take the child on every Sunday of every month for the period between 2.00 and 7.00 p.m. without any restriction or supervision of or from the respondent, which had been imposed by the impugned order.

4. As far as overnight stay was of the child with the appellant is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that for meaningful visitation rights the period should be extended and this too was agreeable to counsel for the respondent Shri Mannan who made a statement in that regard after obtaining instructions. Page No.2

5. In view of the above, the impugned order of the trial court shall be modifiedto the following extent:

1) The appellant is entitled to take the child for half a day visitation on every Sunday - exceptthe second Sunday of the month. This shall be between 2.00 pm - 7.00 pm without any supervision of any kind ofthe respondent;

2) Theappellant shall be entitled to pickuptheminor child Janvi, from the residence of the respondent at 5.00 p.m. on the second Saturday and drop back the child next day i.e. Sunday at 12.00 Noon. The visitation rights in respect of this second Sunday shall, however, be restricted to this part alone, in other words the right to pick up the child every Sunday and bewith herfor 5 hours between 2.00 p.m. -

7.00 p.m. shall notbeavailable onthe second Sunday.

6. The appeal and the pending applications are disposed off in the above terms. However, the present order shall not conclude the otherdisputes, rights or claims of theparties.

7. Copy of the orderbe given Dastito parties.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMIWAZIRI, J NOVEMBER 27,2013 Page No.3