FA/58/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2238 UK

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                 AT NAINITAL

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

                                          AND

                  THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Mr. ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2021

                                5TH JULY, 2021

BETWEEN:

Puja Rani                                                         .....Appellant.
and

Dinesh Singh,
S/o Ramesh Singh,
R/o 36 Engineer Enclave Doon, Doon Vihar, Jakhan,
Dehradun, District Dehradun.                                   ....Respondent

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Mehboob Rahi, the learned proxy counsel for Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.

Counsel for the respondent:                None.




The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:     (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated

21.01.2021, passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family

Court, Dehradun in O.S. No. 32 of 2019, whereby the learned

Judge has directed the appellant (mother) to ensure that the

respondent (father) is permitted to interact with the minor

child, Master Shivansh Pratap Singh, through video-

conferencing, on daily basis for ten minutes beginning at

06:00 P.M. The learned Additional Judge, Family Court, has

also given an option to the appellant (mother) that in case

due to any technical reason, the video-conferencing cannot

be held, the appellant (mother) shall be free to ensure that

the video-conferencing is held on the next day.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant,

Smt. Puja Rani, and the respondent (father), Mr. Dinesh

Singh, were married on 24.11.2017 in accordance with the

Hindu customs and rites. During the wedlock, Master

Shivansh Pratap Singh was born. According to the appellant,

she was severely harassed and tortured by the respondent

(father), and was ousted from her matrimonial house. The

appellant claims to be presently living at her parental house

along with the child.

3. The respondent (father) has filed a petition before

the learned Family Court for seeking the custody of the minor

child. By order dated 21.01.2021, an interim arrangement

has been made by the learned Additional Judge, Family

Court, in the terms mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this

appeal before this Court.

4. Mr. Mehboob Rahi, the learned proxy counsel for

Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant,

submits that since the child is only two years' old, it would be

extremely difficult for the appellant (mother) to make him

interact with the respondent (father) on daily basis.

Moreover, there may be certain technical difficulties, which

may arise, which will not allow the appellant (mother) to

ensure that the respondent (father) should interact with the

child for ten minutes at 06:00 P.M. Therefore, the learned

counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be set

aside.

5. Heard Mr. Mehboob Rahi, the learned proxy counsel

for Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel for the

appellant, and perused the impugned order.

6. Since the child is small one, and since a petition for

the child's custody has been filed by the respondent (father),

both the child, and the respondent (father) have the right to

interact with each other. For, even at the tender age of two

years, a child should not be deprived of the father figure.

Moreover, the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, has

already given an option to the appellant (mother) that in case

due to any technical reason, the video-conferencing cannot

be held on a daily basis, or on a particular day, she is

welcome to ensure that the video conferencing does take

place on the next day.

7. Furthermore, there cannot, possibly, be any

difficulty that will arise for the child. For, even if the child

does not speak and cannot converse with his father,

considering his tender age, at least, the father would have

the satisfaction of seeing his child, and be able to see,

whether the child is being well looked-after by the appellant

or not?

8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not

find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby,

dismissed.

9. No order as to costs.

(RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.)

(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.) Dated: 5th July, 2021 Rathour