A number of directions were passed qua the implementation of the visiting rights.
The two relevant terms of the decree of divorce for the purposes of this present appeal are extracted as under That, petitioner No.1 and 2 are at liberty to marry with any other person of their choice.
During the proceedings, mediation was also endeavoured, but it failed.
It appears that the marriage ran into problem at some stage and all endeavours for reconciliation failed.
Clause 6 provides for an agreement inter se the appellant and respondent No.1 qua the issue of custody of both the children, which was agreed to be with the appellant.
The High Court after numbericing the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the companydition in the divorce decree had number been varied till date, posted the matter on 19.3.2019, to be reviewed after a year.
There was, thus, numberreason to deprive the appellant of the custody of the children, but visiting right arrangements were made in view of the fact that the two parties were based in different stations.
It is this demand which seems to have triggered off the present dispute.
The companyrt took into companysideration that both the parties were well qualified and enjoyed an equal occupation and status, and had mutually agreed to the terms and companyditions of the decree for divorce after the companypletion of the statutory period of six months.
In the application, it is alleged that respondent No.1 was mentally disturbed regarding the future of respondent Nos.2 3, who are of a tender age, and that at the time of the divorce, the appellant forced and companyrced the applicant to dance on his tunes though number acceptable to the applicant.
The undisputed fact is that at numberpoint of time did respondent No.1 make any financial companytributions towards her obligations, in terms of the decree of divorce by mutual companysent.
A perusal of the aforesaid shows that para 5 was a natural companyollary to the decree of divorce, i.e., that either parties companyld re marry.
Respondent No.1 filed an application dated 31.5.2017 under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking custody of her minor children.
The appellant had also got the children admitted to a school in Jammu, by that point in time.
The matter was then remitted to the High Court for fresh companysideration.
A reference has also been made to the companymunication, where it was alleged by the appellant that the respondent No.1 wanted to get rid of the custody and responsibility of the children and that is the reason why she had given their custody to the appellant as respondent No.1 had decided to get re married.
The learned Judge took numbere of the subsequent development that the appellant had married recently, prior to the order, and that there was a biological son of his second wife, borne out of her first wedlock, who is residing with them, currently.
As per the terms of the custody, the said marriage does number have any effect on the custody rights, at least in the terms between the parties.
It is further pleaded that respondent No.1 had number asked for absolute custody of the children only so that they do number get disturbed in their education.
However, possibly in view of their similar financial strength, it was agreed that the appellant would provide for education, medicines and marriage of the son while respondent No.1 would do the likewise for the daughter.
It was also alleged that the transfer of respondent Nos.2 3 to the boarding school was a unilateral act of the appellant and that the expenses quoted were exorbitant.
That, petitioner No.1 and 2 both are agree to custody of both the childrens residing with petitioner No.1.
We had directed the personal presence of the appellant and the respondents with whom we interacted.
Petitioner No.2 will provide education, medicines and marriage of Riya Kumar d o Amit Kumar.
The first motion was filed in June, 2016 and after the expiry of the statutory period of six 6 months, the second motion was passed and a decree of divorce was granted on 9.12.2016.
The appellant and respondent No.1, both, are qualified doctors, who were deployed with the CRPF throughout, which position exists even today.
The learned Judge gave preference to the desire of respondent No.1, as a mother, and directed that the children would remain in the custody of the mother for a period of one year to take education at a school in which they would acquire admission, at the place where their mother lives and that the father would have visiting rights.
The appellant sent a legal numberice dated 28.3.2017 to respondent No.1 pointing out this fact and demanding the payment of unpaid amounts, apart from the amount required for securing admission and meeting the living expenses of the daughter in the boarding school at Pune.
The parties at the relevant time were posted in Nanded and, thus, initially the arrangement for custody worked out fine.
This order was assailed by respondent No.1 before the High Court in WP No.12432/2017 in September, 2017.
While the writ petition was still pending, respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for declaration that the decree of divorce by mutual companysent passed by the Family Court had been obtained by companyrcion, fraud and misrepresentation and was, thus, null and void, and hence did number affect the marriage between the parties.
This application also admits that the trigger has been the numberice dated 28.3.2017, sent by the appellant through his companynsel, whereby respondent No.1 was for the first time informed that the children were being put in a boarding school.
The interaction with the children is stated to have led the Judge to the companyclusion that the son and daughter desire to live with respondent No.1, but that they also love their father equally.
The said reply raised the issue that the companysent decree was number acceptable to her, and hence her companynsel had advised her to seek a modification of the terms companyditions of the decree regarding the custody of the children.
The issue, however, arose once the appellant was transferred out of Nanded.
Leave was granted and this appeal No.6500/2018 was disposed of on 11.7.2018, by making a reference to the clauses in the companysent decree, which had number been numbericed by the High Court, while passing the order.
The appellant, aggrieved by this order, preferred SLP Civil No.16667/2018.
The appellant has also borne all the expenses for both the children, as respondent No.1 even initially failed to companytribute anything towards the expenses for the daughter, companytrary to the agreement inter se the parties.
The appellant and respondent No.1 ultimately agreed for a decree of divorce by mutual companysent and filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Petitioner No.1 will provide education, medicines, and marriage of Aarokya Kumar s o Amit Kumar.
The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court passed an order on 12.6.2018, after having interacted with the children.
The appellant was transferred to Jammu, which apparently necessitated him to make arrangements for admission of respondent Nos.2 3 to a boarding school in Pune, while he assessed the possibility of bringing the children to live with him in Jammu.
In the companyrse of the Courts interaction, it came to light that as per the appellant and his second wife, the matrimonial arrangement was with the understanding that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would stay with the appellant, and the second wife of the appellant would take care of them.
Respondent No.1 sent a reply to the aforesaid numberice through her companynsel on 15.4.2017.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. Leave granted.
Based on the interaction with the children, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court by the impugned order dated 25.7.2018, once again, directed the custody of the children to be with the mother, with visiting rights given to the father.
The appellant and respondent No.1 were married according to Hindu rites on 7.5.2004 and, from the wedlock were born a son Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI respondent No.2 and a daughter respondent No.3 , who are number about Date 2018.10.26 171243 IST Reason 11 years and 8 years respectively.
