Sandeep Kumar v. Usha

1. Allowed, subject to just exemptions. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 241/2024 & CM Appl. 42680-81/2024

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2022, passed by Mr Sanjay Jindal, Judge, Family Court No.3, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

3. Via the impugned judgment, the Family Court Judge has disposed of the petition preferred by the respondent under sections 7, 9 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

4. The record shows that the couple entered into matrimony on 03.05.2013. 4.[1] From the wedlock, the couple have two children; a boy and a girl. The boy was born on 13.02.2014, while the girl child was born on 08.10.2015.

5. Once notice was issued in the aforementioned petition, the appellant entered appearance and filed his written statement.

6. The record also discloses that the appellant stopped appearing before the Family Court, which resulted in the appellant being proceeded ex parte. The order to that effect was passed by the Family Court on 12.05.2022. 6.[1] In support of her case, the respondent entered the witness box. The Family Court Judge returned, inter alia, the following findings of fact, which read as follows:

Secondly, it is also found to be otherwise improbable that the petitioner would make a compliant with the police and-registered FIR against the respondent after handing over the custody of the children on her own and in peaceful manner. The version of the petitioner is not only established on record, the same is otherwise found to be natural and probable.”

7. According to the learned Family Court Judge, what emerged clearly was that the appellant had unauthorizedly removed the children from the custody of the respondent and that the allegations made by the appellant against the respondent in his written statement were not proved as no evidence was led by the appellant.

8. Significantly, while disposing of the petition, the Family Court Judge granted visitation rights to the appellant by holding that he would be able to interact with the children on first and third Saturdays of every month between

3.00 to 5.00 P.M., albeit in the children’s room attached to the court. 8.[1] The record also shows that the directions, which were issued, gave leeway for adjusting the interaction dates. Accordingly, the directions provided- in case the parties were not able to visit the children’s room on the designated dates, relevant adjustments could be made; to which reference is made in the impugned judgment.

9. This appeal is impregnated with delay and laches. Even according to the appellant, there is a delay of 570 days. 9.[1] Besides this, what emerges is that the children continue to remain in the custody of the appellant, although he had been directed to hand over the custody of the children to the respondent within eight (08) weeks from the date of the impugned judgment.

10. Today, in the Court, the appellant is physically present along with the children.

11. In our view, a litigant who fails to comply with a judicial order, without a tenable reason, legal or otherwise, ought not to be entertained by the courts. 11.[1] There has been, concededly, non-compliance of the directions contained in the impugned judgment and order for more than one and a half year. We find that the appellant is literally cocking a snook at the law.

12. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.