Bhanu Pratap Singh vs Smt Ruchi Kumar And Ors on 27 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11283 / 2017
Bhanu Pratap Singh Son of Shri Rajendra Singh Kanawat, by Caste
Rajput, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of 123/29, Lodha Haveli,
Naya Bajar, Ajmer.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Ruchi Kumar Wife of Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Daughter of
Shri Kaushal Singh Rathore, by Caste Rajput, Aged About 32
Years, Resident of 123/29, Lodha Haveli, Naya Bajar, Ajmer and At
Present Residing At 201, Officer Campus, Vistar Sirsi Road, Jaipur.

2. Kausal Singh Son of Shri Nanalum, by Caste Rajput, Aged
About 55 Years

3. Smt. Yogeshwari Wife of Shri Kausal Singh, by Caste Rajput,
Aged About 50 Years

4. Smt. Kritika Daughter of Shri Kausal Singh, by Caste Rajput,
Aged About 30 Years, All Residents of 201, Officer Campus, Vistar
Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
—-Respondents

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantanu Bansal for Mr. Peush Nag
For Respondent(s) :

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI
Order
27/07/2017

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated

4th May, 2017.

Learned counsel submits that after ex-pate proceedings on

the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act,

the matter was finally heard. At that stage, an order has been

passed for presence of the son to find out his desire. It is taking

into consideration his age. The son is residing with the mother for
(2 of 2)
[CW-11283/2017]

last 14 years thus he would not recognise the petitioner. In those

circumstances, desire of the son would be as an empty formality.

The petitioner should have been given visiting right before calling

son so that he may give proper desire. In view of the above,

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

I have considered the submission made by learned counsel

for the petitioner and perused the record.

I find no illegality in the impugned order. The child at the age

of 15 years is considered to be matured enough to make his

opinion as to whether he wants to reside with mother or father. If

petitioner had no opportunity to visit the son, he was at liberty to

make an application to seek visiting right which can be filed even

now.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid, I do not find any

illegality in the impugned order. While dismissing the writ petition,

liberty is given to the petitioner to make an application for visiting

right.

(MN BHANDARI) J.

FRBOHRA

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *