Ajay Tyagi v. Smt. Priti Tyagi) under Section
Case Details
Court No. - 39 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 853 of 2024 Appellant :- Ajay Tyagi Respondent :- Smt Priti Tyagi Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Pandey,Gopal Khare,Kamini Pandey (Dubey) Counsel for Respondent :- Sundeep Shukla With
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Smt. Priti Tyagi Respondent :- Ajay Tyagi Counsel for Appellant :- Sundeep Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Amar Jeet Upadhyay,Anand Kumar Pandey,Gopal Khare,Kamini Pandey (Dubey) Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Ms. Kamini Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in First Appeal No.1341 of 2023 is taken on record. 3. These are cross appeals filed by either party arising from interlocutory order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Meerut, in Misc. Case No.17 of 2023 (Ajay Tyagi Vs. Smt. Priti Tyagi) under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 whereby the learned court court has provided for visitation rights in favour of the father of the two minor children born to the parties, once a month. The appellant in First Appeal No.853 of 2024 seeks further visitation rights whereas the appellant in First Appeal No.1341 of 2023 resists award of the visitation rights to the respondent. 4. Briefly, it may be noted that Smt. Priti Tyagi / mother of the children, has apprehension that her husband Ajay Tyagi would misuse visitation rights and violate the custody that otherwise exists with her. On the other hand, Ajay Tyagi / father of the children states, he is being unnecessarily deprived of company of his children solely for reason of matrimonial discord existing between the parties. 5. Yesterday, we interacted with the parties and children. It was revealed, this is the second marriage of both parties. There are no children born to them from their first marriages. Our observations as to that interaction are recorded in the order dated 25.09.2024, quoted below: "1. Pursuant to last order, both parties are present along with their children. They have appeared before the Mediation Centre attached to this Court. Shri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned Mediator, has submitted a report. It has been marked as 'X' and retained on record. 2. Thereafter, the parties appeared before the Court. We have interacted (in camera) with the parties individually and also together. We have further interacted (in camera) with the children alone and later in presence of their father. 3. In addition to the report submitted by the learned mediator, we find that the children who are very young, expressed their feelings. While the girl child Aradhya was more forthcoming from beginning and had no qualms and difficulty in interacting with her father (as also had been reported by learned mediator), the boy child Rishi who is elder of the two first expressed to us (in private) his reservations in meeting his father. In that, he voiced certain grievances with respect to past transactions. Considering that he was referring to events that may have taken place long ago and in time when he may have been one or two years of age, we encouraged him to share his thoughts with his father. To that, he agreed. He also stated, he may be willing to meet his father, if the latter were to apologize for his mistakes. On the other hand, the girl child was unwilling to seek any apology from her father.
Decision
4. Accordingly, we allowed the children to interact with their father in our presence. In that, Rishi referred to instances of harsh punishment meted out - once to him and another to his younger sister. To that, appellant/Ajay Tyagi responded with apology. That was accepted by the children inasmuch as Rishi acknowledged the fact that it was the good deed on part of his father to apologize for the mistakes committed by him in the past. Upon further encouragement, he walked up to his father; shook his hand and gave him a hug. The girl child also interacted with her father and chose to sit in his lap, on her own. She too gave her father a hug before they parted. 5. As to the arrangement that may be made between the parties with respect to visitation rights being claimed by the appellant/Ajay Tyagi, no settlement could be reached as the respondent/Smt. Priti Tyagi is dismissive of any possibility of concession to be given by her to allow the appellant/Ajay Tyagi to interact with the children. She referred to the past and present disputes between the parties and complained of past events. She also informed that divorce suit has also been instituted by her, which is pending. 6. In absence of any settlement reached, put up tomorrow. Personal appearance of the parties is dispensed." 6. Today, we enquired from the learned counsel for the parties if they were serious about these appeals arising from interlocutory order passed by the learned court below. Both counsel state, they have instructions to press their respective appeals. 7. Since both appeals arise from an interlocutory order, requirement of the lower court records is dispensed with. Both appeals may be heard subject to maintainability. 8. In the meantime, in view of our observations recorded in the order passed yesterday, it appears proper that the visitation rights allowed by the learned court below may be availed by the respondent / father of the children before the mediation centre attached to the district Court at Meerut. For that purpose, the respondent may ensure that she remains present with both children at the medication centre attached to the district Court at Meerut on 1st Saturday of each month at 2:00 p.m. At that time, the appellant may be allowed opportunity to interact with his minor children under supervision of an experienced mediator. After two hours, and in any case not later than 5:00 p.m., the respondent would remain entitled to the custody of her children. 9. The appellant undertakes to strictly abide by the terms of this order. 10. In First Appeal No.853 of 2024, Sri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Appellant shall have one week's time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. 11. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. Order Date :- 26.9.2024 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)