1 MP 753/18
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Misc. Petition No. 753/18
(Arun Singh @ Arun Raj Ruhela Vs. State of M.P. others)
Gwalior Dt. 18/5/2018
Petitioner in person.
None for the respondent.
1. Supervisory jurisdiction of this court u/Art. 227 of the
Constitution is invoked to assail the interlocutory order dated
9/1/2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court,
Guna (M.P.), disposing of an application u/S. 25 (1) of the Guardian
and Wards Act, 1890 preferred by the petitioner/father seeking
weekly visitation right and participation in the monthly Parent-
Teacher Meeting (for short the PTM) in the school of his children (8
years daughter and 3 years son) who are living in the guardianship of
their mother/respondent. The trial court directed fortnightly visitation
right to the petitioner/father but declined the permission to
participate in the monthly PTM.
2. Petitioner who appears in person has been heard at length.
3. Petitioner submits that he being natural guardian of his
children ought to have been given weekly visitation right instead of
fortnightly and also that being father his participation in the monthly
PTM would further the cause of welfare of his children and therefore
the same ought to have been allowed. It is further submitted by the
petitioner that the respondent-mother is a patient of schizophrenia.
4. It is seen from the record that the order impugned herein is
interlocutory in nature passed in a petition by father seeking custody
of his children who are presently living under the guardianship of
their mother and the case is pending at the stage of adducing of
evidence of the petitioner.
4.1 The trial court has made interim arrangement allowing
visitation right to the petitioner with once a fortnight frequency. The
2 MP 753/18
petitioner claims weekly visitation right. It is not a case where the
visitation rights have been denied in toto. The only question raised is
about frequency with which the visitation right is extended. The
Family Court is well within it’s jurisdiction to decide on the given
material the frequency with which visitation right can be extended to
a particular parent. Thus because the visitation right has been
restricted to frequency of once a fortnight as against once a week as
claimed by the petitioner/father, cannot merely on that ground be
termed as wanting in jurisdiction. The trial court is the best judge for
dealing with the factual situation in the given facts and circumstances
since it has the advantage of witnessing the demeanour of the
parties and the witnesses which advantage however is not available
to the appellate or revisional court. The Family Court in it’s wisdom
has granted fortnightly visitation right.
4.2 As regards the other ground of participation of petitioner-father
in monthly PTM is concerned, it is seen from the impugned order that
denial is based on reason that since both the children are residing
with the mother and the mother is in the know of the academic
performance and requirements of the children, the mother is the best
person to contribute to the welfare of the children. While on the
other hand, petitioner/father is not in regular touch with the children
and therefore is unaware of their academic needs and thus will not
be able to effectively contribute qua the welfare of the children in the
PTM at this stage. This seems to be the reason for the learned
Principal Family Judge to have denied the prayer for participation of
the petitioner-father in the monthly PTM. The said reason does not
appear to be absurd or untenable in law since it cannot be denied
that petitioner as father is not in the know of the academic
requirements of the children. Thus, the decision of the Family Court
in denying participation of father in the monthly PTM cannot be for
the time being found fault with.
3 MP 753/18
4.3 However, since impugned decision of denial to participate in
the monthly PTM is an interim arrangement, it is open for the
petitioner/father to apply afresh for the same once the father by
availing his right of fortnightly visitation becomes aware of the
academic needs of the children.
4.4 This court in the absence of cogent material declines to go into
the question that the respondent/mother suffering from
schizophrenia or not.
4.5 The petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Smt. Manju Tiwari Vs. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and
another (AIR 1990 SC 1156) to contend that weekly visitation
rights ought to be extended to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the
said decision of the Apex Court reveals that the same turns on it’s
own facts and does not lay down any law. The direction for weekly
visitation rights to the father therein are based on the peculiar facts
available in the said case which do not have universal application.
5. Accordingly, this court while declining interference in the
matter extends liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh for
participating in the monthly PTM after the petitioner/father becomes
aware of the academic requirements of the children by visiting them
for a few months.
6. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.
DHANANJA Digitally signed by DHANANJAYA BUCHAKE
DN: cIN, oHIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH
GWALIOR, ouP. S., postalCode474011,
7413, cnDHANANJAYA BUCHAKE
Date: 2018.05.23 12:10:36 +05’30’