MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Custody to Father

Calcutta High Court
(Appellete Side)

Via Video Conference)

CO 1155 of 2020
With IA No.: CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No:CAN 4608 of 2020)

Soumi Mukherjee (Chakraborty)
vs.
Manas Mukherjee

With CO 1119 of 2020
With IA No.: CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No:CAN 3980 of 2020)
With IA No.: CAN 3 of 2020 (Old No:CAN 3981 of 2020)

Manas Mukherjee
Vs.
Soumi Mukherjee (Chakraborty)

Mr. Souri Ghosal … for the petitioner in CO 1155 of 2020 and for the respondent in CO 1119 of 2020.

Mr. Prabal Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Banerjee
Ms. Sananda Ganguly … for the petitioner in CO 1119 of 2020 and for the respondent in CO 1155 of 2020.

The revisional application CO 1155 of 2020 was filed challenging the order dated July 13, 2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court Hooghly Sadar in Act VIII, Case No.42 of 2019.

By the order impugned, the application of the mother for taking back the child from the custody of the father was rejected. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner (mother) preferred this revisional application. The revisional application was heard on several days by different coordinate Benches of this Court. Consequently, an application was also filed “ being IA No.: CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No:CAN 4608 of 2020)” for modification of an earlier order.

Today, the matter has come up for hearing before this Court along with applications being IA No.: CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No:CAN 3980 of 2020) and IA No.: CAN 3 of 2020 (Old No:CAN 3981 of 2020). These applications were filed by the mother praying for urgent hearing of the revisional application. The parties have appeared before this Court and have filed a notorized petition containing consent terms arrived at between the parties. The parties have agreed that CO 1119 of 2020 filed by the husband with a prayer for bringing the minor son from Guwahati for visitation of the father would be withdrawn. Similarly the mother has also consented that CO 1155 of 2020 praying for bringing back the son from the father’s custody to the mother’s custody would also be withdrawn. It has been agreed that the custody of the child shall remain with the father, that is, Manas Mukherjee and the mother will have visitation rights.

See also  CHILD ACCESS & VISITATION GUIDELINES for Maharashtra

The consent terms which have been filed in Court today be taken on record.

The said consent terms have been signed by both the parties, namely, Soumi Mukherjee (Chakraborty) and Manas Mukherjee and they have been identified by their respective learned Advocate-on-records.

In the facts as stated hereinabove, the revisional applications being CO 1119 of 2020 and CO 1155 of 2020 along with all the connected applications are disposed of in terms of the consent petition filed in Court today.

There will be, however, no order as to costs. In view of the order passed in these revisional applications, nothing remains for adjudication in the Act VIII Case No.42 of 2019 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Chinsurah at Hooghly and the parties are at liberty to approach the learned Court for withdrawal of the same.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Is false implication fabrication of evidence
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation