SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Indranil Mukherjee vs Smt. Jayeeta Mukherjee (Nee on 22 September, 2017



In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
C.O. 3229 of 2017

Indranil Mukherjee


Smt. Jayeeta Mukherjee (Nee

Mr. Anindya Lahiri,
Mr. Samrat Paul
…for the petitioner

Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharjee,
Mr. Rameshwar Sinha
…for the opposite party

This revisional application is directed against the order dated

September 14, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District

Judge, 1st Court at Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Misc. Case No.

220 of 2016 in an application filed by the petitioner-husband

under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. By the

impugned order, the learned Court below has permitted the

petitioner to visit the minor son and minor daughter on every

Friday, between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. at the court premises, when the

court remains open. The learned Court below has directed the

opposite party-wife to facilitate the necessary arrangement, so that

the petitioner can meet the minor children.

The grievance of the petitioner in this application is that the

learned court below ought not to have fixed the place of meeting

between himself and the minor children at the court premises,

that too, on a week day. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner

that this Court should allow the petitioner to meet the minor

children at least on two days, during the Durga Puja.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the

opposite party submitted that his client has already filed an

application before the learned Court below, for review of the

impugned order passed by the learned Court below and he raised

serious objection to the maintainability of this revisional

application. It is strongly urged on behalf of the opposite party

that the minor children are not inclined to meet the petitioner that

too, during the days of Durga Puja.

In view of the submission made on behalf of the opposite

party that the minor children do not want to meet the petitioner, I

find that the prayer of the petitioner should be considered after

considering the feeling of the minor children towards the


Let, this application be placed before the Vacation Bench on

September 25, 2017 when the opposite party shall bring the minor

children before the Court.


Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be

made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite


(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

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