Page No.1 2025:CGHC:12655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 227 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Nirala S/o Shri Sudama Nirala Aged About 34 Years Occupation Service R/o Village and Post Chikhli Police Station and Tahsil Pusaur District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Pooja Nirala W/o Shri Sanjay Nirala Aged About 34 Years Caste Satnami R/o Village Kumhari Police Station Kosir Tahsil Sarangarh District - Raigarh Now Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on board 17/03/2025 1. This petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved with the order dated 5.2.2025 passed by the Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh by which application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and the respondent was given visiting right to meet her child namely Sankalp Nirala on every Saturday from 11:00 am to 5:00 pm at the house of the present petitioner. Review application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was filed by the petitioner, however, the said application was also dismissed. Hence, this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order granting visiting right to the respondent-wife in order to meet her NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.22 12:35:52 +0530 Page No.2 child is not in accordance with law. The wife has not taken any care of her child and the child is being taken care by the petitioner-husband. Respondent-wife has filed various applications and she is litigating with the husband. Earlier an application under Section 97 & 98 of CrPC for getting custody of child was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, the same has been dismissed. Nature of wife is not so good and she is in quarreling habit. As such, it will effect the mental status of the child, therefore, the impugned order is not in accordance with law. 3. Without noticing to the other side, this Court has considered the argument advanced by the petitioner. 4. It is not in dispute that the boy child namely Sankalp Nirala is residing with the petitioner. He is born out of wedlock of the petitioner as well as the respondent-wife, however, due to dispute between husband and wife, the said boy child is residing with his father. When application was moved under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the concerned Family Court has considered the same and after being satisfied has passed an order granting visiting right to the wife. 5. While deciding application for grant of visitation right the paramount consideration which is required to be considered by the Courts are the welfare of the child. A Division Bench of this Court in FA (MAT) No.123/2023, decided on 11.10.2023, while dealing with the issue of grant of visitation rights has observed thus:- “8. In a custody battle, there can’t be a straight jacket formula to be followed. In the Indian society, the grandparents form an integral part for upbringing of a children and that part of affection and contribution cannot be ignored or shelved and it is the welfare of the children which we are concerned. The grand parents Page No.3 being ancillary part and parcel of the family would hold this way for welfare of the child. Therefore, meeting of the grand parents with the children would also be a necessary part for upbringing, before their mind is polluted by unilateral act of any of the single parents. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67 held that even if custody is given to one parent, the other parent must have sufficient visitation right to ensure that child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with anyone of two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child, therefore, the welfare would the paramount consideration for the child. The parents may be at loggerheads and may clamp allegation on each other but that factor qua the welfare is to be tested before the Court. 10. In the matter of R.V. Srinath Prasad Vs. Nandamuri Jayakrishna and Ors, 2001 (4) SCC 71 and in Vikram Veer Zohra Vs. Shalini Bhalla, 2010 (4) SCC 409, the principle has been laid down that the custody matter of a child can never be a final and no single factor can be taken to be decisive while granting custody to one. 11. There is no conflict in such proposition. To bring the lens back to the facts of the case, it would show that initially only the father was allowed to meet the children in the Court. Obviously, we are not in agreement with such order, as bringing the child to the Court on frequent occasions cannot be appreciated because of its social structure and atmosphere, which is not under the control of an individual and cannot be mitigated. Therefore, we deem it proper to change the venue of the meeting apart from the fact of giving a contact right to the father. Page No.4 Therefore, following the dictum laid down in Yashita Sahu (Supra) and Ritika Sharan Vs. Sujoy Ghosh, 2020 SCC Online SC 878, we grant the visitation rights to the father at an independent venue and the grand father of the children shall also be allowed to accompany the father. The arrangements are being made in order to draw a balance to ensure the situation since the parents are in conflict and the child develops a sense of security. Further, the interest of child is best served by ensuring that the parents should have a footprint in the upbringing of the child.” 6. In light of aforesaid pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court when the case at hand has been examined, it is apparent that the minor boy child is aged about 9 years. The mother is the natural guardian of the child, as such, there would be no impediment if the mother meets her boy child in a week between 11:00 am to 5:00 pm. For rest of the days he will remain with his father and on Sunday also he will meet his mother in the house of the petitioner i.e. father. Both husband and wife are having equal rights on their child, the child cannot be made to suffer on account of the dispute between wife and husband. Learned Family Court has rightly passed the order granting visitation right to the respondent-wife to meet with her boy child. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary one. Rather, in my considered opinion of this Court is fair and reasonable order which cannot be interfered with. 7. In view of the above, this petition has no substance, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the threshold. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Nisha