Puja Rani vs Dinesh Singh

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

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.

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.

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.

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.

Heard Mr. Mehboob Rahi, the learned proxy counsel for Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned

order.

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.

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?

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.

No order as to costs.