Pooja Saini vs Naveen Saini
2024 Latest Caselaw 19776 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pooja Saini vs Naveen Saini on 29 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Kumar Birla

Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98033-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 245 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- Pooja Saini
 
Respondent :- Naveen Saini
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Lal Bahadur Yadav,Vivek Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
 

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2024

1. Heard Shri Vivek Kumar yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection in case delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed.

4. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal.

Appeal

1. Since delay condonation application is allowed by order of this date, therefore, we proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

2. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.43 of 2023 (Naveen Saini Vs. Smt. Pooja Saini) by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, under Section 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

3. By the impugned order the visitation right has been granted to the father of the child to the extent that he will be permitted to meet his minor son, who is living with his mother-the appellant herein, before the court on the date fixed and for this purpose a sum of Rs.500/- per day has already been awarded to the appellant herein.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that welfare of the child is supreme and has not been considered in the present case. The order is illegal, perverse and suffers from non application of mind. It is submitted that the sole ground that since plaintiff respondent is the father of the child, therefore, he cannot be restricted from the love and affection of their father, is totally baseless.

5. Argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are totally misconceived and are rejected. We find that the court below is granted only visitation right that too once in a month before the court on the date fixed and expenses have also been granted to the mother-appellant herein.

6. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

7. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.5.2024

Nitendra