High Court

Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. Dr. Anagh Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who is father of two children, a little boy and girl. Mr. Piyush Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent, the mother. The first appeal was moved on 16th April, 2025 before a Bench, in which one of us (Arindam Sinha, J) was party. Text of order made that day is reproduced below. "1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who is father of two children, a little boy and girl. He submits, his client had filed for custody of the children, as against the mother. On query he submits, there has not yet been any matrimonial litigation.

2. His client made application under section 12 in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for visitation including overnight stay by the children, with him. By impugned order dated 19.02.2025, the Family Court directed visitation, three times a month for physical contact in presence of the mother and video conferencing with conditions. There is no mention regarding his client's claim for overnight stay with the children. Respondent no.2 (the mother) has also filed appeal against said order.

3. He relies on view taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Savitha Seetharam versus Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam, available at 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2747, inter alia, paragraph 16. He seeks direction in modification of impugned order for his client to have substantial visitation and contact rights.

4. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent, whose client has filed First Appeal no.249 of 2025 (Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal versus Dr. Prakhar Kumar) and submits, welfare of the children lies in total custody of his client. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu versus State of Rajasthan, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67, paragraph no.20.

5. On query, Mr. Shukla submits, his client is ready to reconcile with appellant. Mr. Mishra submits likewise.

6. It is unfortunate that the children are deprived of having both their parents. In view of submission at the Bar regarding reconciliation, list as fresh on 02.05.2025 marked at 02:00 p.m. The parties (husband and wife) may be present in Court, for us to ascertain if reconciliation or otherwise agreement between them for purpose of the appeal, is possible. Till then direction made in impugned order be complied with. Respondent might allow some further contact, if she will." The appeal then was taken up by a subsequent Bench on 19th May, 2025, to which also one of us (Arindam Sinha, J) was party. Text of subsequent order made on 19th May, 2025 is reproduced below. "1. Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Piyush Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent. There are two children, of whom appellant is the father and respondent, mother.

2. Submission at the Bar is with reference to order dated 16th April, 2025 that both parties are present in Court. We are told further that they had appeared before co- ordinate Bench on 2nd May, 2025. Perused order made that day.

3. We have interacted with the parties. We request them to attempt a fresh beginning. For the purpose, this is all that we record.

4. We are hopeful of being able to dispose of the appeal without adjudication. Whatever be, parties will convey their respective positions through their learned advocates. They need not be present in Court.

5. List on 8th July, 2025 as fresh." Appellant filed for special leave to appeal (SLP) to the Supreme Court against aforesaid subsequent order dated 19th May, 2025. Dr Mishra submits, the SLP was disposed of by the Supreme Court on order dated 29th May, 2025. Text of said order dated 29th May, 2025, disposing of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) no(s).15850/2025 (Prakhar Kumar vs. Aditi Dhaundiyal) is reproduced below. "We dispose of this Special Leave Petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to seek appropriate orders with regard to interim custody of the minor children for the purpose of exercising interim custody during summer vacation. It is needless to observe that if such a prayer is made by the petitioner herein before the concerned Family Court, the same shall be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law having regard to the fact that presently summer vacation is on. The aforesaid order has been made being mindful of the fact that the matter is pending before the High Court and bearing in mind that presently the summer vacation is on. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." Pursuant to aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, appellant approached the Family Court. Said Court passed order dated 30th May, 2025, directing interim custody of the children to be with appellant between 1st and 16th June, 2025, during their summer vacation. Dr. Mishra submits, the order was not complied with by respondent. His client again applied to the Family Court. There was modification on direction for interim custody between 20th and 30th June, 2025. This direction was also not complied with by respondent, who also applied for modification. Ultimately, there was order dated 23rd June, 2025 by the Family Court on consent of the parties, to have day custody for ten days thereafter. Dr. Mishra submits further, in the meantime, respondent had filed for special leave to appeal (SLP) before the Supreme Court against order dated 30th May, 2025, by which interim custody of fifteen days had been initially directed. Respondent's SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on order dated 30th June, 2025 of the Supreme Court. Text of said order dated 30th June, 2025 is reproduced below. "The Special Leave Petition is filed questioning the order of the Family Court dated 30.05.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the Special Leave Petition seeks liberty to withdraw and workout the available remedies either before the High Court or before the Family Court. By granting liberty as prayed for, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." We get impression that settlement and understanding between the parties, we had hoped for, is not possible. Appellant will provide English translation of impugned order and all subsequent orders passed by the Family Court, upon advance copies furnished to learned advocate for respondent. We will hear and dispose of the appeal on adjourned date, if possible. List on 17th July, 2025 marked at 2:00 pm along with connected appeal. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 RKK/- (Arindam Sinha, J) (Dr Y K Srivastava, J)

Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. Dr. Anagh Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who is father of two children, a little boy and girl. Mr. Piyush Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent, the mother. The first appeal was moved on 16th April, 2025 before a Bench, in which one of us (Arindam Sinha, J) was party. Text of order made that day is reproduced below. "1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who is father of two children, a little boy and girl. He submits, his client had filed for custody of the children, as against the mother. On query he submits, there has not yet been any matrimonial litigation.

2. His client made application under section 12 in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for visitation including overnight stay by the children, with him. By impugned order dated 19.02.2025, the Family Court directed visitation, three times a month for physical contact in presence of the mother and video conferencing with conditions. There is no mention regarding his client's claim for overnight stay with the children. Respondent no.2 (the mother) has also filed appeal against said order.

3. He relies on view taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Savitha Seetharam versus Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam, available at 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2747, inter alia, paragraph 16. He seeks direction in modification of impugned order for his client to have substantial visitation and contact rights.

4. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent, whose client has filed First Appeal no.249 of 2025 (Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal versus Dr. Prakhar Kumar) and submits, welfare of the children lies in total custody of his client. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu versus State of Rajasthan, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67, paragraph no.20.

5. On query, Mr. Shukla submits, his client is ready to reconcile with appellant. Mr. Mishra submits likewise.

6. It is unfortunate that the children are deprived of having both their parents. In view of submission at the Bar regarding reconciliation, list as fresh on 02.05.2025 marked at 02:00 p.m. The parties (husband and wife) may be present in Court, for us to ascertain if reconciliation or otherwise agreement between them for purpose of the appeal, is possible. Till then direction made in impugned order be complied with. Respondent might allow some further contact, if she will." The appeal then was taken up by a subsequent Bench on 19th May, 2025, to which also one of us (Arindam Sinha, J) was party. Text of subsequent order made on 19th May, 2025 is reproduced below. "1. Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Piyush Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent. There are two children, of whom appellant is the father and respondent, mother.

2. Submission at the Bar is with reference to order dated 16th April, 2025 that both parties are present in Court. We are told further that they had appeared before co- ordinate Bench on 2nd May, 2025. Perused order made that day.

3. We have interacted with the parties. We request them to attempt a fresh beginning. For the purpose, this is all that we record.

4. We are hopeful of being able to dispose of the appeal without adjudication. Whatever be, parties will convey their respective positions through their learned advocates. They need not be present in Court.

5. List on 8th July, 2025 as fresh." Appellant filed for special leave to appeal (SLP) to the Supreme Court against aforesaid subsequent order dated 19th May, 2025. Dr Mishra submits, the SLP was disposed of by the Supreme Court on order dated 29th May, 2025. Text of said order dated 29th May, 2025, disposing of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) no(s).15850/2025 (Prakhar Kumar vs. Aditi Dhaundiyal) is reproduced below. "We dispose of this Special Leave Petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to seek appropriate orders with regard to interim custody of the minor children for the purpose of exercising interim custody during summer vacation. It is needless to observe that if such a prayer is made by the petitioner herein before the concerned Family Court, the same shall be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law having regard to the fact that presently summer vacation is on. The aforesaid order has been made being mindful of the fact that the matter is pending before the High Court and bearing in mind that presently the summer vacation is on. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." Pursuant to aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, appellant approached the Family Court. Said Court passed order dated 30th May, 2025, directing interim custody of the children to be with appellant between 1st and 16th June, 2025, during their summer vacation. Dr. Mishra submits, the order was not complied with by respondent. His client again applied to the Family Court. There was modification on direction for interim custody between 20th and 30th June, 2025. This direction was also not complied with by respondent, who also applied for modification. Ultimately, there was order dated 23rd June, 2025 by the Family Court on consent of the parties, to have day custody for ten days thereafter. Dr. Mishra submits further, in the meantime, respondent had filed for special leave to appeal (SLP) before the Supreme Court against order dated 30th May, 2025, by which interim custody of fifteen days had been initially directed. Respondent's SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on order dated 30th June, 2025 of the Supreme Court. Text of said order dated 30th June, 2025 is reproduced below. "The Special Leave Petition is filed questioning the order of the Family Court dated 30.05.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the Special Leave Petition seeks liberty to withdraw and workout the available remedies either before the High Court or before the Family Court. By granting liberty as prayed for, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." We get impression that settlement and understanding between the parties, we had hoped for, is not possible. Appellant will provide English translation of impugned order and all subsequent orders passed by the Family Court, upon advance copies furnished to learned advocate for respondent. We will hear and dispose of the appeal on adjourned date, if possible. List on 17th July, 2025 marked at 2:00 pm along with connected appeal. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 RKK/- (Arindam Sinha, J) (Dr Y K Srivastava, J)