In the High Court At Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
C.O. No. 896 of 2018
Smt. Upasana Maitra
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
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.)