AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 284 wordsLeave granted.
The present appeal arises from an order of the Family Court granting interim custody of the child, who is approximately 5 years of age, to the mother.
Visitation rights have been granted to the appellant who is the father, on every Sunday at the scheduled time. The revision has been dismissed by the
High Court.
Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits at the outset that his clients shall be withdrawing the Section 9 application
filed before the Family Court.
Having considered all aspects of the matter, without commenting on the merits so as not to prejudice either party in the substantive Custody Petition
under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which is still pending for final decision, keeping in mind the paramount interest of the minor
child, we are not satisfied that the impugned order for interim custody calls for any interference at this stage.
Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, we direct the Family Court to decide the question of custody of the child on its own merits without being
influenced in any manner by our reluctance to interfere with the order of interim custody.
Learned counsel for the respondent has assured that no unnecessary adjournments shall be sought so that the matter may finally be decided
expeditiously within a maximum period of 3 to 4 months.
We also consider it proper to enhance the visitation rights granted to the appellant to Saturdays and Sundays at the scheduled time. We have been
assured that the custody of the minor child shall be handed over to the respondent by coming Saturday (12.06.2021).
The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.