FAO-667-2025 (O& 116 IN THE Avtar Singh Mandeep Kaur CORAM: HO HO Present:- Mr Mr SUDHIR SING CM-2125-CII For 79 days in filing Main case (O& Ch 13.08.2024 pass short ‘the Fam Guardian and W minors, namel appointment of (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH Date of versus Kaur HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Sanish Girdhar, Advocate for ***** SINGH, J. (ORAL) CII-2025 For the reasons stated in applicati n filing the appeal is condoned. e (O&M) Challenge in the present appeal is passed by learned Principal Judge, e Family Court’) whereby the peti and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the A namely, Sumandeep Kaur and A ent of the appellant their real father 1 of 3 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH FAO-667-2025 (O&M) ate of decision: February 03, 2025 ….Appellant ….Respondent SUDHIR SINGH SUMEET GOEL and for appellant. plication, same is allowed. Delay of peal is to the impugned order dated udge, Family Court, Tarn Taran (for e petition under Section 7 of the the Act’) for grant of custody of the nd Abhavjot Singh by way of father as their legal guardian, was 3 M) 2025 llant dent ay of ated (for the f the of was MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.05 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment FAO-667-2025 (O&M) 2 of 3 allowed to the extent of granting visitation rights in favour of the appellant to meet minor children. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved only to the extent of granting visitation rights to the appellant to meet the minor children in the mediation centre i.e., after lunch, when he came on leave. 3. The impugned order is premised on the following reasons: - “Vide separate statement, petitioner Avtar Singh stated that he only wants visitation rights to meet his children whenever he came on leave from his job. Vide separate statement, respondent Mandeep Kaur stated that she has heard the statement of the petitioner and she is agreed to it. She is ready to arrange the meeting both the minor children with petitioner in mediation center Tarn Taran whenever he came on leave from his job. In view of the statement of both the parties, the present petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioner has been granted the visitation rights to meet the minor children, whenever he came on leave from his job. The petitioner can meet the minor children in the mediation center i.e. after lunch when, he came on leave. The petitioner has been directed to move appropriate application before this court regarding it, so that his meeting with the minor children be arranged in mediation center. The petitioner has been given visitation rights to meet his minor children. Accordingly, the present petitioner is allowed and file be consigned to record room.” 4. Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘The Family Courts Act’) reads thus:- “19. Appeal.— xx xx xx (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.05 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment FAO-667-2025 (O&M) 3 of 3 under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991” 5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the petition filed by the appellant was allowed on consensual basis as the appellant had made a statement to afford him only visitation rights to meet his children whenever he came on leave from his job, to which, the respondent had also agreed. Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act stipulates that no appeal lies from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties. 6. Faced with the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant seeks liberty to move an application before the learned Family Court for redressal of his grievance in respect of grant of visitation rights. 7. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of, with liberty, as aforesaid. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE February 03, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.05 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment