Chattisgarh High Court
Abhijit Kumar Singh vs Smt. Pooja Singh on 16 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCC No. 330 of 2020
• Abhijit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Kalika Prasad Singh Aged About 39
Years R/o Flate No. 801, B. T. 09, Omex Hights Sector -86,
Faridabad, District Faridabad Hariyana, District : Faridabad, Haryana
---- appellant
Versus
• Smt. Pooja Singh W/o Shri Ashish Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o
Flat No. 108, Harsh Hevens, Ashok Nagar, Sipat Road, Bilaspur,
Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
• Shri Abhijit Kumar Singh, appellant in person.
• Shri Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent.
D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor
Order on Board
Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
16.08.2021
Heard.
2. The appellant in person has appeared through video conferencing
seeking modification of the decree passed by this Court earlier on
10.12.2019 in appeal FAM 224/2019.
3. The appellant who is the father of the minor daughter Kumari
Shambhavi has argued that earlier when the decree of the Family Court was
modified by this Court on 10.12.2019, he was not heard.
4. He would argue that after divorce between the parties, the appellant
being the father is entitled to proper and effective visitation rights to meet his
daughter which purpose may not be fully served with the limited time and
days as ordered passed by this Court earlier on 10.12.2019. He would
submit that the non-appellant wife has remarried and appellant's daughter is
now residing in the family atmosphere with step father. Therefore, in these
circumstances, more so when the appellant is residing in Delhi, he may be
allowed effective visitation rights by an appropriate arrangement of his
daughter brought to Delhi in frequent intervals so that he may enjoy his right
of visitation with his daughter. According to him, in last about one and a half
years, twice he made an attempt to meet his daughter at Bilaspur but the
meeting was not in a normal and healthy atmosphere but there was lot of
tension and the time was also very short. He further submits that he is in a
position to spent two days at Bilaspur. In any weekend, he may be allowed
to take the child with him for about two days on any Saturday and Sunday
as may be directed by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that the appellant participated in the divorce proceedings and had no
grievance with the decree passed by the Family Court but it was only non-
appellant wife who filed appeal seeking modification of the decree to the
extent of specific direction with regard to the visitation rights granted to
appellant on which, order was passed on 10.12.2019. He would further
submit that even though notice were issued and the service of notice was
effected through paper publication, the appellant chose not to appear.
Lastly, he would submit that the daughter Ku. Shambhavi aged about 11
years is residing at Bilaspur and non-appellant has no objection to appellant
meeting the daughter on the days and during the hours as per the
directions/decree dated 10.12.2019 but if daughter is compelled to visit
Delhi during Covid time, it would adversely effect her safety also, apart from,
unwarranted and uncalled for inconvenience to the daughter and it may also
hamper her studies.
6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records before us.
7. At the first place when the Family Court passed decree of divorce,
visitation right was granted to the appellant taking into consideration that the
daughter was in the custody of wife. The appellant did not challenge the
decree on any ground whatsoever, but remained content with the same. In
Para 14 of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court on
15.11.2018, it has been clearly recorded that there is no dispute between
the parties with regard to the custody of daughter Ku. Shambhavi and that
their statements are to the effect that the daughter shall continue to remain
in the custody of the mother. This was never challenged by the appellant by
filing any appeal before this Court.
8. It was only the divorced wife who filed appeal seeking modification of
the judgment and decree to the extent of specific directions with regard to
the visitation rights granted to the appellant - the father of the daughter Ku.
Shambhavi.
9. The application for modification of judgment and decree dated
10.12.2019 seeks modification that the appellant is not being allowed to
meet his daughter, non-appellant wife has remarried, name of the parentage
of the child is changed, he was not duly informed regarding the proceedings
before this Court and the decree subsequently passed by this Court on
10.12.2019.
10. The Family Court while passing decree of divorce had granted
visitation rights to the appellant without specifying the time or days on which
the appellant could meet his daughter. It was not the appellant but non-
appellant/wife who filed appeal for modification. The appellant was served
through paper publication but he did not appear therefore, in those
circumstances we passed a final order modifying the judgment decree to the
extent of specific directions with regard to visitation rights granted to
appellant by the Family Court and keeping in view, that the appellant being
the father of the child is entitled to visitation rights. We fixed the time of
meeting between 4 to 7 PM in the evening at the address given in the cause
title of the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 on every second and
fourth Sunday of the every month.
11. The prayer for modification that the daughter be brought to Delhi for
two days cannot be allowed because this will involve movement of the
daughter all the way from the Bilaspur to Delhi which is far away and apart
for causing inconvenience is not only likely to hamper her studies but also
expose the child to prevailing pandemic condition and may adversely affect
her health also. The object of providing visitation rights could be very well
achieved under the present arrangement where the appellant may come to
Bilaspur on Sundays as directed earlier and meet his daughter without
subjecting the daughter to inconvenience as stated herein above.
12. However, taking into consideration that appellant would be coming to
meet his daughter from Delhi and as he is not resident of Bilaspur, we
consider it appropriate to enlarge the time of meeting of the appellant with
his daughter. We consider it appropriate if the time of meeting is modified
from 4 to 7 PM to 1 to 7 PM in the evening at the address given in the cause
title or at some other place as may be agreed to between the appellant and
non-appellant. As agreed to between the parties, the appellant shall inform
to non-appellant at least two days before regarding his visit.
13. However, the prayer of the appellant to allow temporary custody of
the child cannot be allowed in these proceedings. Without saying anything
more, we leave the appellant to workout such other remedies as may be
available to him under the law, if at all appellant is willing to take the custody
of the child.
14. The application is accordingly partly allowed and decree modified to
the extent as above.
15. A decree be drawn accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Pawan Prajapati
