Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010028262025 2025:GAU-AS:17332 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/44/2025 TIKENDRAJIT DEKA S/O- PRASANNA DEKA, HOUSE NO 11 NEAR GEETA NAGAR HIGH SCHOOL, BAIKUNTHAPUR, NAMGHAR PATH, 2ND BYE LANE, GUWAHATI- 781021, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, VERSUS PRIYANKA KALITA DEKA W/O- TIKENDRAJIT DEKA, D/O- LATE NAGENDRA KALITA, R/O- KAHARPARA, TIHU, VILL- BORGAON, P.S AND P.O- TIHU, NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781034 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR INDRAJIT SUVASH MAJUMDAR, MS S KAKATI,MR N ALI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B K GOGOI, MR. P. BORGOHAIN,MR. R B GOHAIN Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/571/2025 TIKENDRAJIT DEKA S/O PRASANNA DEKA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 11 NEAR GEETA NAGAR HIGH SCHOOL NAMGHAR PATH 2ND BYE LANE GUWAHATI 781021 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS PRIYANKA KALITA DEKA W/O TIKENDRAJIT DEKA D/O LATE NAGENDRA KALITA RESIDENT OF KAHARPARA TIHU VILLAGE BORGAON PS AND PO TIHU DIST NALBARI ASSAM 781034 ------------ Advocate for : MR I S MAZUMDAR Advocate for : appearing for PRIYANKA KALITA DEKA BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 15.12.2025 1. Heard Ms. R. S. Kakati, learned counsel for the petitioner “X” as well as Mr. R.B. Gohain, learned counsel for the respondent “Y’’. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2024, passed by the learned trial court, Kamrup(M) in F.C(Civil)/679/2020. 3. It is submitted that the respondent was directed to produce his daughter Miss. “D” so that the petitioner can meet his daughter. Page No.# 3/4 4. The petitioner is aggrieved as the respondent was directed to produce their child in the Court premises. The petitioner has prayed for an order to allow him to meet his daughter on Saturdays and Sundays outside the Court premises and also to call his daughter over phone. 5. It is submitted that the respondent did not even comply with the order dated 07.09.2024 and their daughter was not produced even in the Court premises. The petitioner, who is eager to meet his daughter, is debarred from meeting his daughter and the respondent makes every excuse to restrain him from meeting his daughter. 6. I have scrutinized the order impugned by the petitioner. 7. The petition has been strenuously resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent stating that the conduct of the petitioner is such that it becomes impossible to allow the petitioner to meet his daughter even outside the Court premises. 8. It appears that the trial court is the best court to decide the issue on the place suitable to bring the minor child where the respondent can allow the petitioner to meet his daughter. The petitioner indeed has every right to meet his daughter. 9. Considering all aspects, the order dated 07.09.2024 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to file a petition afresh for consideration by the learned trial court to allow him to meet his daughter, who is at present with his Page No.# 4/4 grandmother. 10. The learned trial court may consider the petition and pass any order which the trial court deems fit and appropriate and in accordance with law. 11. In terms of above observation, this appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant