Gauhati High Court
Jaymati Patowary vs Partha Pratim Mahanta on 12 April, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010074232022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/78/2022
JAYMATI PATOWARY
W/O SH. BIPIN NATH PATOWARY, R/O HOUSE NO. 5, MADHUBAN PATH
NEAR BJP OFFICE, HENGRABARI, GUWAHATI-781036 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
VERSUS
PARTHA PRATIM MAHANTA
R/O HOUSE NO. 31 SURVEY SANMOY PATH, GUWAHATI-781028 KAMRUP
(M) ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAMUAH
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
12.04.2022
Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel along with Mr. D. Das, learned counsels for the
petitioner.
None has appeared for the respondent.
Page No.# 2/3
The revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the
Court of Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Kamrup(Metro) at Guwahati in Misc. (G) Case No.
161/2019. By the impugned order, the Court below permitted the respondent to take his
daughter to his home from 04.00 PM of 09.04.2022 till 06.00 PM of 17.04.2022.
This Court vide order dated 06.04.2022 passed in CRP(I/O) No. 73/2022 upon hearing
the respective counsels taking into account the basic requirements of the welfare of the minor
child in custody, ordered that the Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Kamrup(Metro), at
Guwahati shall interact and record its views in the order to be passed. The petitioner and the
minor girl were also directed to be produced before the Family Court on 08.04.2022. The
Family Court was directed to pass a detailed order in the best interest of the minor girl taking
precaution but ensure that the minor girl remains free from influences. The earlier order
passed by the Family Court dated 02.04.2022 was interfered with.
In deference to the order passed by this Court on 06.04.2022, the Family Court duly
interacted with the minor girl and thereafter, passed a detailed order which is impugned in
the present proceedings. From the impugned order itself it is evident that the minor girl
informed the Court that she does not want to stay with her father. She scared of her father
because her father used to scold her. She likes her grandmother and maternal aunt who loves
her like her mother. Whenever, she visited her father's place, she remembered her mother.
In spite of such categorical statements made by the minor daughter the Family Court
passed the impugned order permitting the respondent to take his minor daughter to his home
for the periods mentioned above.
Mr. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that this impugned
order is bad in law and as much as the views of the minor girl after being recorded that she is
scared of her father and does not want to stay with her father, the Family Court permitted the
father, namely the respondent, to take his daughter for the periods mentioned.
Page No.# 3/3
Mr. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in Nil Ratan Kundu and Anr. Vs. Abhijit Kundu reported in (2008) 9 SCC 413 to
submit that if the minor voices any preferences, then the Court must consider such
preference in the interest of the welfare of the minor.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, let Notice be issued on the
respondent. Let Notice be made returnable on 18.04.2022.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take steps by registered post as
well as dasti during the course of the day.
Let the matter be listed again on 18.04.2022 on which date the continuance/extension
of the interim order passed today will be again considered..
In the meantime, the impugned order dated 08.04.2022 shall remain stayed till the
next date of listing.
Since this is an ex-parte order, the respondent is granted liberty to seek
modification/alteration, if so advised.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
