AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (ORAL)
CM APPL. 6180/2023[Application filed on behalf of the Respondent for limited clarification of order dated 03.02.2023 passed by this Court]
The present Application has been filed by the Respondent No. 1 inter-alia seeking a modification of the order dated 03.02.2023 [hereinafter “said Order”].
Mr P. Banerjee, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, submits that the remit of Counsellor(s) appointed by the Court be extended and the Counsellor(s) be directed to also take into account the averments made by Respondent No.1 regarding “parental alienation of Respondent No.1” and “minor child being tutored”, in their evaluation report.
It is further submitted that the directions regarding the preponement of the Guardianship Petition No. 48/2012, Family Courts, Saket [hereinafter called “Guardianship Petition”] as appearing in paragraph 9 of the said Order may not be required as the report of the Counsellor(s) shall not be available until sometime in March, 2023, and that the Family Courts would be required to take the same into account.
The Appellant i.e., Ms Ritu Johri, who appears in person in these proceedings, has appeared through Video Conferencing on advance notice in the Application.
It is submitted by the Appellant that the Counsellor(s) have begun their sessions with the Parties and have convened the first meeting on 06.02.2023.
The Appellant has opposed the relief(s) claimed in the captioned application.
We have heard the Respondent No. 1 as well as the Appellant in person.
The apprehension of the Respondent No. 1 that the “minor child is being tutored” was considered by this Court while passing the said Order. In fact, it also forms part of paragraph 5 of the said Order.
“5.Having regard to the allegations and counter allegations and keeping in mind the welfare of the minor child, we deem it appropriate that an independent child counsellor(s) be appointed to interact with the minor child. We are of the opinion that the appointment of a child counsellor(s) is called for given what is stated above and the nature of allegations made in the present application.”
The submission of the Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that the hearing before the Family Court should not be preponed, as the final report of the Counsellor(s) would help in the adjudication of the Petition pending before it, is pre-mature and without any merit. The Family Court is not likely to hear and decide the Guardianship Petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 in one day. Given the acrimony between the parties and the fact that the Guardianship Petition has been pending for more than ten years and has already been finally argued on more than one occasion, we had deemed it appropriate to request the Family Court to expedite the hearing in the matter.
Therefore, in our opinion, the Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 is misconceived.
The Application is accordingly, dismissed.
List the Appeal on date already fixed i.e., 22.02.2023.