Komal Sanghvi vs Falgesh Sanghvi

V.L. Achliya, J.—Not on Board. Mentioned.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and respondent/husband present in person.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th November, 2015 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai granting overnight access to custody of child aged 3.1/2 years to respondent for the period of ten days from 9th November, 2015 to 19th November, 2015.

Perusal of the record reflects that there is an order passed in terms of the consent terms filed for grant of interim access signed by the petitioner and respondent. As per the arrangement worked out mutually, the respondent/husband was allowed to have interim access to his daughter Tanvi on first, second and third Sundays from 4.00 pm to 7.00 pm at Raghuleela Mall, Kandivali (West) till the disposal of the petition pending before the Family Court.

On 21st October, 2015 an application came to be filed on behalf of the respondent/husband seeking overnight access of the child in the Diwali Vacation from 10 am on 9/11/2015 to 8 pm on 19/11/2015. A notice was issued to the petitioner/wife calling upon her to respond to the application on 5.11.2015. It appears that on 3rd November, 2015, the respondent/husband moved an application to take up the matter for hearing on board. The respondent/wife opposed the application. By an order dated 6th November, 2015, the learned Judge has ordered to grant the overnight access of minor child Tanvi aged about 3.1/2 years to respondent/husband for the period of ten days from 9/11/2015 till 19/11/2015.

On consideration of the submissions advanced, I am of the view that the arguable case has been made out in the petition to consider the correctness of the impugned order. Looking to the age of the child as 3.1/2 years, it is not desirable to have overnight access of the child to be given for the period of ten days. There is already a workable arrangement operating in the matter with the consent of the parties to have interim access to the child. There was no reason to have passed such an order of granting overnight access for the period of ten days that too in respect of the child aged about 3.1/2 years. I, am therefore, inclined to pass the following order :

"(a) There shall be ad interim order in terms of prayer clause

(b) till 16th November, 2015.

(c) List the petition before the concerned court on 16th November, 2015 under the caption of "hearing of an application for interim relief".

(d) It is clarified that the order already operating in the matter as regards interim custody passed with the consent of the parties to remain in force."