Sri Indranil Mukherjee vs Smt. Jayeeta Mukherjee on 25 September, 2017

1

5.09.17
Srimanta
05(S/L)
C. O. No. 3229 of 2017

Sri Indranil Mukherjee
-Vs.-
Smt. Jayeeta Mukherjee

Mr. A. Lahiri,
Mr. S. Dey Paul,
Mr. M. Gupta.
…for the Applicant.
Mr. U. S. Bhattacharyya,
Mr. A. Bhattacharyya,
Mr. R. Sinha,
Mr. A. Agarwal.
…for the Opposite Party.

The petitioner has challenged the orders nos. 20 and 21 dated September

11, 2017 and September 14, 2017 respectively passed in Misc. Case No. 220 of

2016 by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Barasat. By the

second order the learned Judge had allowed the visitation right of the petitioner

to the two minor children. The petitioner had been permitted to visit the minor

children every Friday between 3.00 and 5.00 p.m. in the Barasat Court premises

when the Court remains open. The opposite party has been directed to facilitate

the visit and make necessary arrangement for meeting the children with their

father.

The petitioner submits that this is going to be a strenuous things for the

children to attend the Court every Friday between 3.00 and 5.00 p.m. Moreover,

during the Vacation the Court shall not remain open and, therefore, on the Puja

days the father shall go without a right of visitation.
2

The learned Advocate for the opposite party/mother has raised various

issues which are not relevant for the disposal of the present case. He has

referred to the case initiated by the opposite party against the petitioner under

Section 498A, the amount of arrear that the petitioner has not paid pursuant to

the order under Section 125. He has mentioned that where the wife is residing

now is a joint property so on and so forth. That the property is a joint property

has not been disputed by Mr. Lahiri, the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

However, he has submitted that a suit about declaration of the ownership of the

property is pending before the Court I am not going to enter into that aspect,

neither am I going to decide the ultimate merit of the application at this stage nor

am I to hold that the revisional application is not maintainable merely because

an application for review at the instance of the opposite party is pending in the

Court below.

I am of the view that the learned Judge has rightly approached the issue

that the petitioner being the father of the minor children should be given

permission to visit his children for the usual development and upbringing of their

children. The children have to pass through enormous suffering and the agony as

a result of missing the society of either of the parents.

The learned Advocate for the opposite party wanted me to assess the

personal inclination of the minor daughter. I have spoken to the minor daughter,

Smt. Rudrani Mukherjee who is aged about eight years. Indeed, she had

expressed her disinclination to go to her father or even to be seen by him. I

asked her thrice why she wants to avoid the company of her father. She
3

mentioned the reasons exactly in the same language and with the same pause in

between two sentences. The repetition of the reasons in the same language and

words is a factor to be taken note of.

It is a part of our shared experience that the fight between the mother and

the father at the very tender age of their children, more often than not, causes

enormous problem for the children when they grow up. The child shall not know

one of his parents and nothing can be a curse worse than that. Moreover, the

right of the father to visit his minor children once a week having been already

recognized by the Court below when the Court is open, his desire, if not right, to

have a visitation of the minor children during the Puja Vacation cannot be

brushed aside as an unjust desire of a father.

I, therefore, direct the opposite party/mother to bring in the children in

Childrens’ Park in front of Rupasi Housing Complex. I have been informed that

there is an arrangement of CCTV camera. The petitioner shall have the right of

visitation for one hour each on September 27, 2017, September, 28, 2017 and

September 29, 2017 between 5.00 and 6.00 p.m. The learned Advocate for the

respondent has expressed his misgiving about the infinite ability of the petitioner

to misbehave. He even submitted that the petitioner’s ability to misbehave is not

a “misbehaviour simplicitor”. I have not been able to understand what is a

complex misbehaviour. However, by way of abundant precaution, I direct one

police personnel in civil dress to be around the place and time of visitation. The

learned Advocate of the parties shall be entitled to intimate the same in the

Newtown Police Station. The Officer-in-Charge of the Newtown Police Station
4

shall provide a police personnel to keep a watch on the parties only during that

period.

Let an affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of two weeks after the

reopening of the Court after the Puja Vacation. Let an affidavit-in-reply thereto,

if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

Let this matter appear as a ‘Contested Application’ in the Combined

Monthly List of December, 2017.

For the sake of communication, compliance and urgency, let an urgent

plain photocopy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar

(Court) be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual

undertakings.

(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)

Leave a Comment

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