Simran Ahluwalia vs Vikaas Ahluwalia
2014 Latest Caselaw 6967 Del

$~31
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    Date of Decision: December 18, 2014
+      CM(M) 1604/10 & C.M.APPLs.22481/10, 13683/11 & 4721/11
       SIMRAN AHLUWALIA                           ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Ms. Anu Narula and Mr. Kunal
                                Arora, Advocates with petitioner in
                                person
                versus

       VIKAAS AHLUWALIA                                  ..... Respondent
                   Through:           Mr. Y.P. Narula, Sr. Advocate with
                                      Mr. Aniruddha Choudhury & Mr.
                                      Abhey Narula, Advocates
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Vide impugned order of 29th November, 2010 respondent-father's application under Section 12 of the Guardianship and Wards Act has been allowed and respondent-father has been permitted to have visitation rights to meet the child-Avnija (now aged about 12 years) on first and third Sunday of each month from 11:00 A.M. till 02:00 P.M. and the modalities of meeting the child have been also spelt out in the impugned order. Respondent-father has been also granted the custody of the child in question during the summer and winter vacations so that she is not deprived of the love and affection of respondent-father.

Petitioner-mother has challenged the impugned order in this petition on various grounds. Vide order of 20 th December, 2010 it has

CM(M) 1604/10 Page 1 been clarified by this Court that the child is not required to go with respondent-father during the winter vacations. However, petitioner- mother was directed to co-operate so that the meeting of the child with respondent-father takes place. Vide order of 21st December, 2011 Ms. Manashi Pathak, Advocate, was appointed as a Court Observer and she has given her reports. There are some medical reports also on record disclosing the psychological condition of the child.

At the final hearing of this petition, learned senior counsel for respondent-father, on instructions, submits that petitioner should persuade the child in question so that an atmosphere is created for a congenial meeting between respondent-father and the child on regular intervals, as it would be for the welfare of the child. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent-father, on instructions, that if petitioner- mother gives a time-frame within which it can be so done, then respondent-father would not press the petition for custody of the child, which is pending before the trial court, but a satisfactory arrangement ought to be worked out so that a healthy interaction between respondent- father and the child in question takes place.

Learned counsel for petitioner-mother submits that the report of the Court Observer and the medical certificates issued by AIIMS Hospital discloses the ground realities and in view of these reports, no such undertaking as desired by respondent-father can be given as of now and that the child in question is under treatment and as and when advised, psychological guidance is provided to the child.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner-mother that petitioner is not averse to the child meeting respondent-father, but since the child has CM(M) 1604/10 Page 2 reached the age of discretion, so it should be left to the wisdom of the child to decide whether she wants to meet respondent-father or not and before such a course is undertaken, a report from a qualified psychologist ought to be obtained.

At this stage, learned senior counsel for respondent-father, on instructions, submits that the petition seeking custody of the child in question is now listed for 2nd January, 2015 before the Family Court and the same would be unconditionally withdrawn.

Let it be so done.

During the course of hearing, it was suggested to both the sides that petitioner-mother should get a psychological evaluation of the child done every quarterly for a period of one year from today by Dr. Sunil Mittal, 35, Defence Enclave, adjoining Gujrat Vihar, Opp. Preet Vihar, Delhi-92 (picked from the two names suggested by petitioner) and to send the copy of these quarterly reports to respondent-father by Registered Speed Post. Thereafter, respondent-father would be at liberty to seek the custody of the child in question or the visitation rights from trial court, on the basis of the psychological evaluation of the child after a period of one year from today.

Both the sides consented and undertook to abide by the afore-noted suggested proposal.

With these directions, the present appeal and the applications are disposed of.

                                                         (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
      DECEMBER 18, 2014
      s
CM(M) 1604/10                                                         Page 3