Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030004452024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/24/2024 Sh. Vanlalhriatrenga S/o Joseph Zohmingthanga R/o Zuangtui, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Smt. Lalduhawmi D/o Darchuailova R/o Keifangtlang, Champhai, Champhai District, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu (Legal Aid Counsel) Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. C Tlanthianghlima (Legal Aid Counsel) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 20-05-2025 Heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 r/w Section 96 & Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the Order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Champhai Judicial District in Guardianship Certificate Application No. 16 of 2023, wherein the learned Trial Court had granted custody of the minor child, Laltharzeli, aged 2 years to the respondent and granted visitation rights of the minor once a month on a day deemed convenient by both parties to the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 3. Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court had erred in giving only visitation rights to the appellant by submitting that in spite of this visitation right, the respondent has not allowed the appellant to take the minor child, Laltharzeli out anywhere or even to go for shopping with the appellant, who is the father of the minor child. He stated that the visitation rights are extremely restricted. He further submitted that the respondent is in a better position to look after the minor child, since he is earning his livelihood by driving a two wheeler taxi and his parents are able to assist him in taking care of the minor child. He further submitted that the appellant is not able to give the proper care and medical treatment required by the minor child, since the respondent is working as a tailor in Champhai town without sufficient income for leaving the minor child to Page No.# 3/5 the care of other persons while she is earning her livelihood. He submitted that the minor child is suffering from hypothyroidism which requires constant monitoring and was caused mainly due to malnutrition while the child was with her mother. He submits that the child was being treated at Aizawl under his custody, but she was handed over to the respondent due to the impugned Order dated 04.04.2024. He therefore prayed that the Order dated 04.04.2024 be set aside since it would be in the best interest of the minor child if she is kept in his custody, being financially more stable than the respondent. 4. Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned Legal Aid Counsel on the other hand, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly passed the Order dated 04.04.2024 by handing over the minor child Laltharzeli, who was aged 2 years at the time of passing the impugned Order dated 04.04.2024, by observing that the minor child was only two years as of now and apparently more suitable to be in the custody of the respondent/biological mother unless discredited in material particulars. That the biological mother was taking care of the minor child till 11.11.2023 and is still willing and fighting to take care of the child, wherein, the present appellant did not deny the fact that he took the permission of the respondent/biological mother to take the minor child for around a period of 1 to 2 weeks only. Page No.# 4/5 5. The learned Trial Court had also observed that a decision to deprive one party permanently is not called for, however, a definite position with regards to custody of the minor will serve the best interest of both the parties and therefore, the learned Trial Court had allowed the appellant to have visitation rights of the minor once a month while giving custody of the minor child, then aged 2 years to the respondent/biological mother of the child. 6. This Court, on perusal of the Judgment & Order made by the learned Trial Court finds that the minor child was aged only 2 years at the time of passing of the order, and therefore is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order, wherein, a child of only 2 years old would be best taken care of by its biological mother unless there is sufficient evidence to show that the biological mother is not capable of looking after a child of 2 years old. 7. On perusal of the documents on record, it is seen that there is not any such document which shows that the biological mother of the child is not capable of giving the required care and affection required by a child aged only 2 years. 8. However, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to interfere with the impugned Order dated 04.04.2024 only to the extent that, when the appellant/biological father of the minor child exercises his visitation right, he should be allowed to Page No.# 5/5 spend quality time with the minor child without unnecessary restrictions from the respondent and further he may also be allowed his visitation rights more than once a month, on a day/days convenient to both the parties. 9. Accordingly, the RFA No. 24 of 2024 stand disposed of as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant