C.O. 3464 of 2018
Smt. Mita Moitra
Mr. Saugata Sen
Mr. Chinmay Pal,
Mr. Kamal Krishna Saha.
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Chandradoy Sarkar.
….for the opposite party.
Mr. Rwintendra Banerjee.
The reconciliation between the parties failed. In view of such position of
the matter Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee, learned advocate appointed as Special
Officer in this matter to resolve the dispute between the parties is discharged.
The marriage between the parties to the present revisional application
has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. The
parties have a minor daughter who is now in the custody of the
mother/petitioner. The father/opposite party has initiated a proceeding under
the provisions of the Guardians and SectionWards Act, 1890. The said proceeding has
been registered as Act-VIII. Case No. 72 of 2016 before the learned Additional
District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore.
The matter was referred by the learned Trial Judge to the Mediator for
settlement of the dispute between the parties. The mother/petitioner before the
Mediator agreed to produce the child in Court on every first and third Saturday
for the purpose of access of the father/opposite party.
However, the mother/petitioner in the suit filed an application praying
that no order be passed on the basis of the agreement arrived between the
parties before the Mediator on the ground that the circumstances have been
changed after the said agreement.
The learned Trial Judge by the Order No. 22 dated July 30, 2018 on the
basis of the said agreement arrived by and between the parties before the
Mediator directed the mother/petitioner to produce the child for visitation of
the father/opposite party on every first and third week in the Court between 3
P.M. to 5 P.M.
The mother/petitioner has challenged the said order in the present
revisional application under SectionArticle 227 of the Constitution of India on the
ground that the learned Trial Judge without considering her said application,
on the basis of the said agreement between the parties has passed the
direction to produce the child in Court.
The grievance of the mother/petitioner is justified. The learned Trial
Judge should not have directed the mother/petitioner to produce the child for
implementation of the agreement between the parties before the Mediator
keeping the application of the mother/petitioner for not to pass any order on
the basis of the said agreement pending. Therefore, the Order No. 22 dated
July 30, 2018 is set aside.
The learned Trial Judge, by the subsequent Order No. 23 dated August
04, 2018, directed the mother/petitioner to show cause as to why the suit
shall not be heard ex parte for non-compliance of the Order No. 22 dated July
The Order No. 22 dated July 30, 2018 since has been set aside,
consequently the Order No. 23 dated August 04, 2018 is also set aside.
The learned Trial Judge is directed to decide the application filed by the
mother/petitioner for not to pass any order in terms of the agreement arrived
at by the parties before the Mediator expeditiously preferably within a period of
three week from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observation, the revisional application being C.O. 3464
of 2018 is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)