Poonam Khichi vs Anil Khichi

This misc. appeal is directed against the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Family Court No.1, Bhilwara whereby on an application filed by respondent under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (‘Act’), interim direction has been given permitting the respondent to meet his son on first Monday of every month during 03:00 pm to 04:00 pm in the control and direction of the Social Welfare Officer, Bhilwara.

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the appeal that the respondent filed an application under Section 25 read with Section 10 of the Act seeking custody of minor son, namely, Shaurya. The application was contested by the appellant, inter-alia, with the submissions that in the past, the respondent has taken custody of the son forcibly without permission of the appellant and, therefore, proceedings under Section 97 of Cr.P.C. were initiated, on which the son was recovered and his custody was handed over to the appellant, thus the respondent is not entitled to seek the right to meet the child.

The Family Court after hearing the parties passed the order, as noticed hereinbefore, giving visitation rights to respondent for a limited period in a month.

Counsel for the appellant made submissions that the Family Court wasn’t justified in accepting the prayer for visitation rights looking to past conduct of the respondent, wherein he has taken custody of the child without permission of the appellant. Submissions have been made that the appellant has apprehension that in case the order passed is executed, there is likelihood that the respondent would again indulge in the same activity and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record.

The child presently is aged about nine years. The Family Court has granted very limited visitation rights, wherein only for one hour in a month, the respondent has been permitted to meet his son and that also in the control and direction of the Social Welfare Officer, Bhilwara. We are firmly of the opinion that looking to the nature of the order, which has been passed by the Family Court, the apprehensions expressed by the appellant are taken care of and the plea raised that the respondent may again indulge in same activity, remains only an apprehension, without any basis.

The submission made that while carrying the child to the office of Social Welfare Officer, the respondent may indulge in the said activity also, cannot be countenanced, as admittedly the child even otherwise, is not confined to home and is already undertaking all regular activities.

In that view of the matter, no case for any interference in the order dated 10.05.2023 is made out. The misc. appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, looking to the fact that the matter is pending before the Family Court since the year 2020, it is expected of the Family Court to decide the proceedings expeditiously.