SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Aarushi Chaudhary vs Vikas Dhiloon on 8 January, 2018

CR No.6174 of 2017 (OM) 1


Civil Revision No.6174 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision:08.01.2018

Aarushi Chaudhary


Vikas Dhillon


Present:Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the respondent.



[1]. This revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner against the order dated 25.08.2017 passed by the

District Judge (Family Court) Karnal, whereby visitation rights

were granted in favour of the respondent to meet the minor child

aged about 2¾ years as per the schedule given in the impugned


[2]. Vide the impugned order, the District Judge (Family

Court) Karnal has allowed the respondent to meet the minor

child for three hours on week days i.e. Monday and Wednesday

1 of 6
15-01-2018 00:52:03 :::
CR No.6174 of 2017 (OM) 2

from 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. Respondent was allowed to meet

the minor child for five hours from 2.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 26th

January, 15th August, Ist November (Haryana Day), 14th

November (Children’s day) and on festive occasions of Holi and

Diwali. Respondent was also granted visitation right to meet the

child from 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on his birthday i.e. on

24.11.2014. Both the parties were asked by the Family Court to

suggest the common meeting point for handing and taking over

the custody of the child for visitation. The failure to reach on a

consensus ultimately entailed in passing of the order that the

custody of the minor Agastya will be taken and handed over for

visitation at Nirmal Kutiya near Court Complex, Karnal.

[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

interest and welfare of the minor is of paramount consideration.

Both the parties have made allegations and counter allegations.

Learned counsel further contended that even during the

proceedings, a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Age

(for short ‘the Act’) was filed by the respondent at Jind and the

respondent has created many scene at Karnal resulting in

preparation of kalendra under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. at the

instance of father of the petitioner. The respondent remained

posted at Jind from September 2015 to May 2016 and the

petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed during currency of

2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 15-01-2018 00:52:04 :::
CR No.6174 of 2017 (OM) 3

his aforesaid stay at Jind. Now the respondent is posted at

Karnal, where the petitioner is also serving as Medical Officer,

Gynae Department, Kalpana Chawla Medical College Civil

Hospital, Karnal.

[4]. Learned counsel further contended that custody of the

minor child is not safe in the hands of the respondent as he did

not pay any visit at the time of birth of the child, rather he

claimed that he was not the father of the child. Learned counsel

by referring to the SMS dated 03.02.2015 sent by the

respondent submitted that birth of the child was even not known

to the respondent till 03.02.2015. He never visited the petitioner

at the time of birth of the child and the intimated conversation

between the couple was to the effect that paternity of the child

was denied by the respondent.

[5]. Learned counsel further raised allegations of sexually

perverted nature of the respondent. The same were made in

para No.1(b) of the reply to the petition under Section 25 of the

Guardian and Wards Act.

[6]. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties.

[7]. At this juncture this Court cannot decide the allegations

and counter allegations of the parties, but the welfare of the

3 of 6
15-01-2018 00:52:04 :::
CR No.6174 of 2017 (OM) 4

minor child is of paramount consideration keeping in view the

tender age of the minor. Petitioner has not filed any petition

against the respondent either under Hindu Marriage Act or

criminal code. It appears that the kalendra under Section

107/150 Cr.P.C. was filed at the instance of father of the

petitioner and the respondent has filed a petition under Section

9 of the Act at Jind.

[8]. This Court has also made an effort for reconciliation

between the parties, however the interaction with the parties

yielded no result.

[9]. While issuing notice of motion on 13.09.2017, this

Court stayed operation of the impugned order till the next date

of hearing. Thereafter the Court interacted with the parties on

14.11.2017 and adjourned the case for 22.11.2017. The

petitioner had to file CM No.25623-24-CII of 2017 for placing on

record the Annexures P-7 to P-12 and for continuation of the

interim order passed on 13.09.2017 as the respondent had

pressed for the visitation rights. The District Judge (Family

Court) Karnal vide order dated 17.11.2017 directed the

petitioner to produce the minor son before the Court for

visitation purpose on 27.11.2017. This court vide order dated

30.11.2017 extended the interim order dated 13.09.2017 till


4 of 6
15-01-2018 00:52:04 :::
CR No.6174 of 2017 (OM) 5

[10]. In view of the aforesaid contest, it appears that the

respondent has not waited for the decision of the present

revision petition, when the Court did not extend the interim order

during the intervening period of interaction between the parties.

[11]. It is a settled principle of law that interest and welfare of

the minor in terms of his health, education, personality and

safety are of paramount consideration before the Court. The

alleged denial by the respondent in the context of paternity of

the minor was a personal communication to the wife and nobody

can be privy to that. Wife may have reasonable apprehension in

terms of safety and welfare of the child on that count.

[12]. Petitioner has not filed any litigation against the

respondent. The Family Court has granted the visitation rights

as per schedule given, which in my considered opinion needs to

be revisited, keeping in view inter se allegations of the parties

which are yet to be proved.

[13]. Keeping in view the avocation of the parties and the

age of the minor, it would be proper to make uniform schedule

of visits. Instead of frequent visits in a week, the respondent can

be allowed to meet the child once a month and on the birthday

of child. This would suffice to meet the ends of justice. The

Family Court is directed to reschedule the visitation rights,

5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 15-01-2018 00:52:04 :::
CR No.6174 of 2017 (OM) 6

thereby fixing an agreed date between the parties in a month,

besides allowing the respondent to meet the child on the

birthday, otherwise welfare of the child may be at stake.

[14]. The Family Court shall take all reasonable steps to

ensure safety and welfare of the child during availing visitation

rights by the respondent.

[15]. With the aforesaid modification, this revision petition is

disposed of.

January 08, 2018 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 15-01-2018 00:52:04 :::

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

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at 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 Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation