Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh Devi vs Kamlesh Kumar on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 814/2022
Santosh Devi W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/
o Trilok Chand Suthar, R/o Amarnagar, Sirohi, Tehsil And Distt.
Sirohi (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Pukhraj Ji Suthar, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Posaliya, Tehsil Sheoganj, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anirudh Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
JUDGMENT
07/12/2022
The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-Smt. Santosh Devi under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 for assailing the judgment dated 28.04.2022
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sirohi in Civil Original
Case No.142/2019 (CIS No.142/2019): Kamlesh Kumar vs. Smt.
Santosh Devi whereby the petition filed by respondent-Kamlesh
Kumar under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
was allowed. The appellant was directed to handover the custody
of minor children, Harshita and Prateek to the natural guardian i.e.
respondent-Kamlesh Kumar.
Assailing the judgment dated 28.04.2022, learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that the children are in the custody of
the mother since their birth. The minor children in their growing
(2 of 3) [CMA-814/2022]
age require emotional support, natural love and affection of the
mother. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is also a
natural guardian of the children and therefore, learned Family
Court committed manifest error in directing handing over custody
of the minor children to respondent-Kamlesh Kumar. Learned
counsel submitted that keeping in view the welfare and well-being
of the children, the appellant is ready and willing to allow the
respondent-Kamlesh Kumar to meet the children and therefore,
she has no objection if visitation rights are ordered and directed
by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Kamlesh Kumar has
placed on record a proposal for grant of visitation rights in his
favour. Clause 2 of the proposal submitted by respondent-Kamlesh
Kumar reads as under:-
"2. That the aforesaid matter is listed before the
Hon'ble Court on 07.12.2022 and during course of the
hearing the respondent made a request for visitation
rights to meet his children on Amavas (i.e. no moon
day) of every month at Family Court, Sirohi for two
hours and in view there of the respondent shall pay
monthly maintenance of rupees 4000/- i.e. Rs.2000
for each child in the bank account of the minor
children to be opened under the guardianship of their
mother in which the present answering respondent
shall be one of the nominee"
Learned counsel for the appellant under instructions
submitted that visitation rights in favour of respondent may be
allowed in above terms.
In view of aforesaid, the present civil misc appeal is disposed
of with the following directions:-
(3 of 3) [CMA-814/2022]
1. The impugned judgment dated 28.04.2022 passed by
Family Court, Sirohi in Civil Original Case No.142/2019 (CIS
No.142/2019): Kamlesh Kumar vs. Smt. Santosh Devi is set
aside.
2. The appellant is directed to open Bank Account(s) in the
name of Harshita and Prateek under her guardianship in a
Nationalised Bank within a period of 15 days from the date of
this order, to which one of the nominee will be respondent-
Kamlesh Kumar.
3. The respondent-Kamlesh Kumar is directed to deposit
monthly maintenance in the tune of ₹4,000 i.e. ₹2,000 each in
favour of Harshita and Prateek on or before 10 th day of every
month in the Bank Account(s) so opened by the appellant.
4. The respondent-Kamlesh Kumar is permitted to meet his
children namely, Harshita and Prateek every Amavasya (new
moon day) of each month for 2 hours at 11:00 AM.
5. The suitable arrangement to facilitate the meeting of
children with respondent-Kamlesh Kumar shall be made at
Family Court, Sirohi.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Record be returned to the Family Court forthwith.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
53-RaviKh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
