After the child Anisha goes to the custody of the mother as ordered above, the Respondent father would be at liberty and privilege to avail her access every alternate weekends, meet her at school at any time and share 50 of her school vacations, as per mutual arrangement with the petitioner mother.
The father respondent shall meet all the expenses for the education, food and clothes etc.
Subsequently, after interviewing the parties and the minor child, the High Court passed a further order on 19.7.07 directing the appellant and the respondent to visit a psychiatrist with the child and to obtain a report from him.
29/2007 before the Bombay High Court on 23.2.2007 and the same was admitted on 7th March, 2007 and was said to have been per emptorily fixed for final hearing on 26th March, 2007.
In order to appreciate the circumstances in which these orders came to be passed, it will be necessary to state a few facts leading to the companymencement of the proceedings before the Family Court.
A third order was passed by the Bombay High Court on 27.7.07 directing the appellant and the respondent to seek appointment with a psychiatrist within a week, and he was also directed to submit his report within 2 weeks after the parties were examined.
The said appeal was also admitted on 3rd May, 2007.
Since these appeals have been preferred against the interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court in the two pending Family Court Appeals, learned companynsel for the appellant, submitted that in these appeals the only grievance of the appellant was with regard to denial of companyplete access to his child.
D 65/2005 before the Family Court.
The subject matter of these appeals are four orders passed by the Bombay High Court on 12th July 2007, 19th July 2007, 27th July 2007 and 6th August 2007 in two appeals from a petition No.
On the same day, the directions companytained in the order of the Family Court dated 2.2.07 regarding access to the appellant to meet Anisha, were modified by the High Court by directing that the minor child would be available to the appellant as and when he was physically present in Bombay at his house.
It was specifically mentioned that the child should number be removed by the appellant out of Bombay for any reason whatsoever, except in the circumstances mentioned in the order.
The said order passed in the two above mentioned appeals is one of the orders forming the subject matter of the appeals before us.
of the minor daughter Anisha and the Petitioner mother of her own accord may companytribute to the same for the child and she should number be prohibited by the respondent father from giving the child Anisha anything for her own companyfort and pleasant living.
The respondent has alleged that in October 2005, taking advantage of such a situation, the appellant kept Anisha back with him and did number return her to the respondents custody.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5088 5097 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C Nos.15167 15176 of 2007 Altamas Kabir, J. Leave granted.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.61 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2007 ALONGWITH FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.29 OF 2007 Mr. R.T. Lalwani, Advocate for the applicant wife Mr. Kevic Settalwad Advocate i b D.H. Law Associates for Respondent husband CORAM J.N. PATEL AND A.S. SAYED, JJ DATE AUGUST 6, 2007 C. Per J.N. Patel,J Heard.
The fourth order impugned in these appeals was passed on 6.8.07 in the pending Civil Application No.81/2007, whereby, in view of the intervening circumstances, the High Court passed the following order.
The appellant herein also filed a Custody Petition, being D 66 of 2005, and both the applications were taken up for hearing together by the learned Family Court.
Aggrieved by the said Judgment and order of the Family Court, the appellant filed Family Court Appeal No.
The said order passed in application No.81/2007 filed by the respondent herein in Family Court Appeal No.61/2007, is one of the other orders which form the subject matter of the present appeals before us.
The access granted to the appellant on Saturdays and Sundays from 9 A.M. to 9 P.M. was companytinued.
In any event, there appears to have been some marital discord, which resulted in the respondent leaving the matrimonial house in July 2004 with her minor daughter and seeking shelter with her parents at Bandra.
Initially there were numberdisputes as such between the parties but after the daughters birth, the atmosphere in the marital home began to change.
We shall number go into the causes as alleged by the respondent since such allegations are number relevant for our purpose, but we can only observe that one of the reasons given by the respondent for the changed circumstances was the change in behaviour of the appellant towards her, on account of addiction to alcohol in the companypany of his friends.
By its judgment dated 2nd February 2007 the Family Court dismissed the appellants application for custody and allowed the application filed by the respdondent by passing the following order ORDER The Respondent Mohankumar Rayana is directed to hand over custody of the minor daughter Anisha to the petitioner mother Komal Rayana immediately after companypletion of her final terms of the current academic session 2006 2007.
The Respondent father shall take all the steps to provide all facilities to the minor daughter to enjoy her extra curricular activities and studies.
It was also stipulated that whenever the appellant was number available in Bombay the child should remain with the respondent.
2 Since both the parties to the special leave petitions are before us, Notice of the Appeals is waived on behalf of the respondent, Komal Mohan Rayana.
On 26th March, 2007 the respondent also filed an appeal, being Family Court Appeal No.61/2007, challenging the operation of the judgment of the Family Court dated 2.2.2007 granting access to the appellant to meet Anisha.
The custody petition D 65/05 moved by the Respondent father Mohan Kumar Rayana stands dismissed with visitation and access rights as ordered above.
Admittedly, the appellant herein, who is the husband of the respondent, married the respondent on 2nd March 2002.
Certain circumstances intervened which prompted the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court to modify its order dated 3.5.07 on 12.7.07 by reducing the access granted to the appellant and limited such access only to the day time on the ensuing Saturday and Sunday.
According to the respondent, during the said period she companytinued to send Anisha to the Kinder Campus School at Chembur, the area where the appellant was residing and permitted him on occasions to keep back Anisha at his residence.
A daughter was born to them and she was named Anisha.
The petitioner mother should in companysultation with the Respondent father decide the question of her further academic education and she should number move the child out of the jurisdiction of the Court without its prior permission and of companyrse after due intimation to the Respondent father.
The matter stands adjourned for 4 weeks.
This arrangement for custody is made on the basis of the prior companysideration for the welfare of the minor Anisha and in the event of change of circumstances either of the parents shall be at liberty and privilege to approach this Court for fresh direction on the basis of changed circumstances.
He was also aggrieved by the reduction of access time by the other orders as well.
A Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellant against the order of the High Court dated 3.5.07 and the same was disposed of on 18.6.07 with a direction upon the High Court to hear the Family Court appeal expeditiously.
The interim arrangement made earlier was directed to companytinue.
3 The appeals arise out of circumstances wherein owing to disputes and differences between a married companyple, the child born of the wedlock has become the object of a tussle for custody between the two parents.
The said order is the third order which is impugned in the present appeals.
