SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Upasana Maitra vs Md. Sabir on 14 May, 2018




In the High Court At Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

C.O. No. 896 of 2018

Smt. Upasana Maitra


Md. Sabir

Ms. Munmun Tewary
…for the petitioner

Mr. Sourabh Sengupta
…for the opposite party

The mother of a minor child, Md. Arya, has preferred the

instant revision against an order dated February 08, 2018 passed

in a proceeding instituted by the opposite party-father under

Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, registered as

Miscellaneous Case No. 170 of 2017 and pending before the

Additional District Judge at Barrackpore, District- North 24-


By the impugned order, the opposite party-father was

permitted to meet the minor son twice a month. The present

petitioner-mother was directed to bring the minor child at Mangal

Pandey Park, Barrackpore twice in a month on any day and time

as agreed by both the parties after consultation over telephone.

Although there is no dearth of good intention in the

impugned order, leaving the day and time of visitation unspecific

could ultimately lead to further litigation and dispute in view of the

acrimony between the parties. Such apprehension is also

expressed by the petitioner.

Both sides are represented today. It has been fairly agreed

by the petitioner-mother that the opposite party-father ought to be

given visitation of the minor child, but the petitioner-mother wants

specific modalities of such visitation to avoid further trouble.

Such view is not opposed by learned counsel for the opposite

party too.

Due to the good efforts of learned counsel for both sides, the

parties have agreed to a mode of visitation. It is submitted by both

sides that the parties are agreeable if an ad hoc arrangement is

made to the effect that the opposite party-father will meet the

minor child, Md. Arya, on the first and third Sundays of every

month during the period from 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. at

Anandapuri Play Ground at Barrackpore. It has been agreed by

the parties that such visitation will be in presence of Ms. Susmita

Paul, an advocate practising in the Barrackpore Court. It is

submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the consent of Ms.

Susmita Paul has been taken for such purpose. Remuneration of

Ms. Paul is fixed at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only per

visitation, to be borne by both sides. However, since the

petitioner-mother submits that the petitioner does not have any

income, liberty is given to the petitioner to claim an adjustment of

such amount with the amount claimed by her as alimony. It is

made clear that the above arrangement is made on an ad hoc

basis, subject to further developments, which would entitle the

parties to approach the court below subsequently.

C.O. No. 896 of 2018 is disposed of accordingly by modifying

the impugned order as per the observations made above.

Parties are requested to furnish website copy of this order to

the learned advocate who has been appointed as Special Officer for

the purpose of visitation.

There will be no order as to costs.

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

made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite


(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, 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