1 2025:CGHC:25310-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 140 of 2023 Bhagwat Shriwas S/o Shri Siyaram Shriwas, aged about 36 years, Husband/plaintiff .... R/o Police Colony, Janjgir, Police Station - Janjgir District Jangir - Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1. Sunita Shriwas W/o Bhagwat Shriwas, aged about 35 years, Wife/defendant ..... R/o Janjgir, at Present R/o Village Kirari, Police Station Barad Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh Now District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 2. Yashwant Shriwas, S/o Bhagwat Shriwas, aged about 10 years, minor (at present 14 years), through natural guardian, mother Sunita Shriwas, W/o Bhagwat Shriwas, R/o Janjgir, at present R/o Village Kirari, Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh, now District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vishwanath Shriwas, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 18.06.2025 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal against the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) passed in C.M.J.C. No. 07/2018, whereby the learned Family Court Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of appellant/husband and respondent No. 01/wife got solemnized on 09.05.2006 and out of their wedlock, they have one male child i.e., respondent No. 02 Yashwant Shriwas. The appellant is working as a constable and after his marriage he is residing with the respondents at Civil Lines, Janjgir and took admision of his son i.e., respondent No. 02 in English Medium Green River Public School, Janjgir. On 02.10.2014, respondent No. 01 along with her brother Pundeshwar Shriwas @ Lallu and respondent No. 02 went to her uncle’s house for attending Bhagwat Katha Gyan. As the appellant returned to his home, he found that respondents are missing, as such he immediately called up respondent No. 01 and then he came to know that after completion of Bhagwat Katha Gyan, she went to her parents’ house and did not return and join the company of the appellant. The appellant approached the respondents and tried to bring respondent No. 02 with him, whereas the respondent No. 01 and her parents refused to give custody of respondent No. 02 to the appellant and abused him by using filthy language. Though, the appellant tried his best by making several efforts to bring back the respondents, but he was always denied by the respondent No. 01. Thereafter, the appellant approached family conciliation center, Janjgir on 07.11.2014 to settle disputes with the respondent No. 01, but respondent No. 1 refused to 3 make any mediation proceeding. The appellant approached the president of their community whereas the counselling was held and in that also the respondent No. 01 has not participated and thereafter, respondent No. 01 lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Janjgir against the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC due to which the appellant was facing criminal trial and after completion of trial in criminal case No. 141/2015, the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled by respondent No. 01. Later on, respondent No. 01 has filed one complaint case under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act before JMFC, Sakti in which the said Court is directed to give interim maintenance to the respondent No. 01 and respondent No. 02 a total of Rs. 3,600/- which is paid every month by the appelalnt without any default. The appellant has preferred an application for divorce before the Family Court, the same is allowed and against that the respondent has preferred the appeal which was dismissed vide Annexure A-2. The appellant with an intention to get custody of respondent No. 02 filed an application under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 which got dismissed by the learned Family Court, Sakti on 17.03.2023 while holding that the appellant has failed to prove that the welfare of the respondent No. 02 lies in living with the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure A/01) is bad-in-law, perverse, thus liable to be set aside. He further submits that respondent No. 01/wife of the appellant tried to falsely implicate him under Section 498-A of IPC so that the bonding between them shall be destroyed, subsequently after being acquitted of the said charge levelled against him, the appellant filed an application for grant of divorce and the same was granted and 4 affirmed by the Court. The respondent No. 02 is the minor child of the appellant and respondent No. 01/wife is having no source of income and at present she is residing with her parents and she is dependent upon the income of the appellant and the appellant is earning Rs. 25,000/- as a salary per month and he is giving interim maintenance to her as well as to his son/respondent No. 02 in domestic violence case which shows that the appellant/husband is financially capable of taking care of respondent No. 02. As such, the appellant has filed an application for custody of his minor child/respondent No. 02, but the learned trial Court without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record and even without considering the welfare of the minor child, dismissed the application of the appellant. The respondent No. 02 is at present aged about 14 years and as per the catena of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that the child who is aged more than 07 or 08 years, in such situation the custody is given to the father because for the financial stability of the future of the minor child and the appellant is willing to take all liabilities and responsibilities of the respondent No. 02 and being a father of respondent No. 02, there is no such difficulty to give custody of the minor child to the appellant as he is financially stable to look after the welfare of his minor child, as such the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 6. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the application was filed by the appellant before the learned trial Court on 13.04.2018, at that time the age of the minor 5 child was about 10 years, now he is aged about more than 16 years and this Court has passed interim order on 06.07.2023 about visitation rights. So, now the appellant wants visitation rights as per interim order dated 06.07.2023. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents raises no objection in this regard. 8. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court finds that welfare of the minor child is with his mother i.e., respondent No. 01 and dismissed the application of the appellant filed under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. This Court passed interim order on 06.07.2023 which is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference as under:- 06.07.2023 “Since the interest of the child is best served by ensuring both the parents have a presence in his upbringing. We order that the appellant-father will provide as smart phone to the Respondents , so as to develop the contact right by video calling every day at about 6 PM and shall have a personal visitation right on every Sunday from 3 PM to 6 PM. The child would be in the custody of the father for such time and shall return to the custody of the mother-respondent No. 01 at 6 PM. The venue of the meeting point shall be decided manually by the parties.” 9. After hearing both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the age of the minor child i.e., respondent No. 02 this appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the appellant father shall provide a smart phone to the respondents, if not provided yet, so as to develop the contact right by video calling every day at about 6 PM and it is also directed that he shall have a personal visitation right on every Sunday from 3 PM to 6 PM. The child would be in the custody of the father for such time and shall return to 6 the custody of the mother-respondent No. 01 at 6 PM. The venue of the meeting point shall be decided manually by the parties. 10. Ex consequenti, this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge U. K. Raju