Indranil Mukherjee vs Jayeeta Mukherjee (Nee Bhattacharjee)

The Court:

This revisional application is directed against Order No. 14 dated 22nd February, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court,

Barasat in Misc. Case No. 220 of 2016 by which an application seeking direction upon the opposite party not to create any interference in performing

the sacred thread ceremony (Upanayan) of the minor son by the petitioner is rejected as premature. Admittedly, the parties to the instant proceeding

are married and registered their marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is also not in dispute that from the said wedlock one male child and a

female child are born on 4th February, 2005 and 6th February, 2009 respectively. By passage of time the relationship between the parties grew bitter

and the record would reveal that the parties have initiated several proceedings both civil and criminal asserting their respective rights. The order is

passed in a proceeding which originated on the basis of an application taken out by the petitioner under Guardians and Wards Act for custody of the

minor children. It is also not in dispute that an application for visitation as and by way of an interim measure was also taken out in the said proceeding

and has been disposed of by the Court below which is also impugned in another revisional application being C.O. 3229 of 2017.

The application which leads to passing the impugned order contains the statement that since the parties are governed by the Hindu Religion, it is the

duty of the father to perform the sacred thread ceremony of the son before he attains the age of 13 years. It has been stated in the said petition that

as per Shastrik Rules the sacred thread ceremony must be performed before the son completes the age of 13 years. The reliance is placed upon an

opinion of one of the scholars of the Hindu customs and the same is annexed to the said application. It is stated in the said application that the

petitioner being the father is duty bound to organize the sacred thread ceremony and further possesses the right that of an Acharya of the minor child.

The wife in turn took a stand in the written objection submitted to the said application that in the garb of performing the sacred thread ceremony the

petitioner intended to achieve something else and if the petitioner so desires may negotiate the disputes and the rival claims of the parties in a proper

manner. At the very outset, this Court must record that there is no express and / or specific denial of the statements made in the said application by

the opposite party. The sum and substance of the statements made in the written objection or that such application is filed with oblique motive and evil

desire on such superficial facts and therefore there is no need to interfere in the carriage of the proceeding. The learned Judge in the Court below

rejected the said application on the ground that it is premature and the reasons recorded in support thereof are succinctly jotted down as under:-

“Admittedly, the minor son of the petitioner is now living under the care and custody of his mother. Usually the Upanayan Ceremony is organized

in any Hindu family with the consultation of the parents and relatives of the said minor son and it cannot be made only at the whims and will of either

of the parents. In the instant case, it appears that the opposite party being the mother is not willing to arrange or organize any upanayan ceremony of

his minor son. Therefore, how is it possible for the petitioner to organize the upanayan ceremony of his son without having any consultation and

negotiation with the mother of the minor son. Therefore, the organizing the Upanayan Ceremony of the minor son, it is the duty of the petitioner being

the father of the minor son to consult the matter with his wife and the relatives. Prior to that any attempt is made by the petitioner appears to be

meaningless.â€​

On a meaningful reading of the above quoted observation it is manifest that the Trial Court proceeded to reject the said application as the opposite

party being the mother is not willing to arrange or organize an Upanayan ceremony of his minor son and therefore it is not possible for the petitioner to

organize such ceremony without having any consultation and negotiation with the mother. What can be seen from the aforesaid observation that the

Court wanted that before the said application is finally decided by the Court of Law, it is imperative on the part of the petitioner to first consult and

negotiate with the mother for performance of such ceremony.

Though this Court does not approve the reasons provided for rejection of the said application for the simple reason that once the parties are at

loggerhead, the negotiation and / or consultation for performance of such ceremony would not yield any fruitful result. If one of the parties have

approached the Court for direction / order it is the duty of the Court to decide the same on legal parameters. Initially, this Court thought that the

impugned order deserves interference but considering that the primary object is to see the welfare of the child, this Court passed various orders on

visitation of the father with the minor children and kept the revisional application alive. However, the parties insisted that the matter should be disposed

of on merit.

 It is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the said application has become redundant and / or infructuous for the simple reason that the

minor male child has crossed the age of 13 years. Such fact is not disputed. It is really a matter of concern that the warring parents are litigating to

satisfy their egos without sensing that where the welfare of their children lies. It is a common experience that when the spouses fall apart, the children

are projected as pawn and used as a tool against each other. The worst sufferer in such litigation are the children. This Court does not delve to go into

the nitty gritty and genuinity of the allegations made in the written objection that such application is taken out by the petitioner with oblique motive yet a

sense of responsibility is percolated through the said application to perform the rituals and the customary rights despite having differences between

themselves. It is a collective obligation and responsibility of all the stakeholders including the parents to act and behave in such a manner which is

conducive, congenial and advances to the welfare of the children.

In course of the hearing, it is submitted by the petitioner that he is agreeable to bear all expenditures for performance of the ceremony. It is further

submitted that even if the opposite party is not agreeing that the petitioner should perform such ceremony as natural father, he is agreeable to perform

such ceremony as ‘Acharya father’ and further agreed to perform such ceremony at the residence of the wife or the place which she thinks fit

and suitable for such ceremony.

The petitioner went further when a suggestion was made by the wife that such ceremony can be performed by anybody as ‘Acharya father’

and agrees to the same with the condition that he should also be allowed to attain the ceremony. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that it

was all along a specific stand of the petitioner that the sacred thread ceremony must be performed before the male child attains the age of 13 years

and since the child has crossed such age, in my opinion, the application has become redundant and / or infructuous.

This Court feels to record that the sacred thread ceremony may be performed at a later period of time but with certain conditions. This Court,

therefore, does not find that it is a fit case where the application filed by the petitioner deserves to allowed in view of the changed circumstances. The

revisional application is thus disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.