1 2025:CGHC:48614-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 296 of 2025 1 - Dr. Vaibhav Jain, S/o Shri Dr. Sureshchand Jain, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ganesh Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Vikrant Dental Clinic, Near Sumit Mandi, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Dr. Smt. Maya Jain, D/o Shri Gulabchand Ji Shri Shrimal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Near Jain Sthanak Bhawan, Mahvir Chowk, Kawardha, Tahsil & District Kawardha Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey appears on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J. 22.09.2025 2 1. Vide this Court’s order dated 15.09.2025, the parties along with their child were directed to appear before this Court today and in pursuance of the said order, appellant/husband is present today before this Court along with his counsel. Let his presence be marked. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent/wife could not appear before this Court today due to her child's exams. Therefore, he seeks further time for conselling. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant appeal has been filed against the interim order passed by learned Family Court whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 and visitation right has been allowed to the extent of visiting the child once a month and also talk over mobile phone once a month. The appellant prays for some modification in the interim order passed by the learned Family Court with regard to visitation right. 4. With the consent of the parties, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the learned Family Court passed interim order on 05.08.2025 and granted visiting rights to the appellant to some limited extent. The appellant is father of the child and child has a human right to have the love and affection of both the parents. The learned Family Court has practically denied his interim custody right by merely reiterating the previous order which was not only vague but was impractical. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and suitable order of custody/visitation right may be passed in the interest of justice. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s judgment dated 11.10.2023 passed in FA(MAT) No. 123 of 2023 {Syed Irshad Ahmed 3 Zaid Vs. Shazia Anjum} and judgment dated 03.02.2022 passed in FAM No. 185 of 2019 {Lalit Kumar Jatwar Vs. Smt. Sushma Jatwar}. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/wife supports the impugned order and submits that the case is pending before the learned Family Court for adjudication and learned Family Court after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order and granted visitation right to the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is well merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that the appellant filed application under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the learned Family Court for custody of his minor son who is presently residing with his mother/respondent-wife. He also filed application under Section 12 of the Act for interim relief and the learned Family Court on 05.08.2025 partly allowed the said application with certain directions which are as under:- "….. अतः प्रकरण क सम्पूण पूरिरस्थितितःयों क दृतिगतः रखतः हुए आवेदन पूत्र आ$ति%क रूपू स वे'क(र तिकयों( जा(कर तिनद*ति%तः तिकयों( जा(तः( हु+ तिक मा(स मा- एक बा(र आवेदक, अन(वेतिदक( क पूवे सचन( दकर अन(वेतिदक( क घर कवेर्धा( मा- आकर अवेयोंक पू2त्र तिवेक्रां($तः स मा2ला(क(तः करग(, जिजासमा- अन(वेतिदक( पूण रुपू स सहुयोंग करग' तः( मा(स मा- एक बा(र अवेयोंक तिवेक्रां($तः क द(द(- द(द' एवे$ तिपूतः( अवेयोंक तिवेक्रां($तः स माबा(ईला स अन(वेतिदक( क पूवे सचन( दकर वे(तः( ला(पू कर सक- ग यों( वे'ति8यों क(जिला$ग कर सक- ग, जिजासमा- अन(वेतिदक( पूण रूपू स सहुयोंग करग'।" 4 9. It is an admitted position that the appellant is father of minor child and minor child is residing presently with his mother. 10. In the matter of Lalit Kumar Jatwar (supra), this Court held in paras 12 and 13 as under:- 12. In addition to "visitation rights", the court observed that the rights in the modern age would be contact by telephone, e-mail or in fact we feel the best system of contact, if available between the parties should be video calling. It observed that with the increasing availability of internet, and the courts dealing with the issue of custody of child must ensure the parent who has denied the custody of the child should be able to talk to his/her child as often as possible. It held that the communication will help in maintaining and improving the bond between the child and the parent who is denied the custody. If that bond is maintained, the child will have no difficulty in moving from one home to another during vacations or holidays. The purpose was held that the court cannot provide one happy home with two parents to the child then let the child have the benefit of two happy homes with one parent each. 13. In a recent judgment rendered in Ritika Sharan Vs. Sujoy Ghosh reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 878, the Supreme Court has held that a balance has to be drawn so as to ensure that in a situation where the parents are in a conflict, the child has a sense of security. The interests of the child are best served by ensuring that both the parents have a presence in his/her upbringing……...” 5 11. As per principles laid down in the case of Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67 and in the case of Ritika Sharan Vs. Sujoy Ghosh reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 878, this Court has passed the order of right to visit in favour of father. 12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of this opinion that some modification needs to be required in the impugned order passed by Family Court. 13. It is an admitted position that case is still pending before the learned Family Court for adjudication, therefore, as an interim measure we modify the impugned order as under:- (1) The father and grand parents would be able to engage with the child on a suitable video conference/call platform twice a week for 5 to 10 minutes. (2) In order to facilitate the video conference/call, the father shall procure a smart phone for the child and would handover the same to the wife. (3) If the physical meeting of the father and the grand parents with the child is to take place at an independent venue, it would be either at the Office of Department of Women & Child Development or any restaurant of the choice of the father on every Saturday and Sunday in between 11 AM to 6 PM. (4) Appellant/father shall have the right to attend Parents- Teacher Meeting in school of minor child and the respondent/wife shall not create any obstacles during this meeting. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. 6 15. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for giving some additional visitation rights in favour of the appellant/father and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV