1 2025:CGHC:10372-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 361 of 2024 Jitendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Dewangan Aged About 41 Years R/o Katiyapara, Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Neeti Dewangan W/o Jitendra Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Narsingh Mandir Gali, Koshtapara, Palace Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Nishita Dewangan Aged About 10 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Neeti Dewangan, R/o Narsingh Mandir Gali, Koshtapara, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For appellant : Shri Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Khushboo Dua, Advocate {Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} (Order in Chamber dated 03/03/2025) Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J This appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth referred to as the “Act of 1984”) has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh (CG) in Civil MJC No. F07/2020. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in short: On 17.11.2020 he appellant filed an application under 25(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short “the Act of 1890”) (Annexure A-2) before learned Family Court, Raigarh seeking custody of his minor daughter - respondent No.2 herein, inter alia pleading that her overall well being can be properly taken care of by him. During the pendency of said application, the appellant moved another application under section 12(1) of the Act of 1890 for grant of temporary 2 custody/visiting rights of the respondent No.2. Learned Family Court vide order dated 25.09.2021 (Annexure A-3) partly allowed the application filed by the appellant and permitted him to meet respondent No.2 on the Sunday of every month or on the Public Holiday any time in between 11.00 AM to 5.00 PM at the current residence of respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 was also directed to facilitate this meeting of the appellant and respondent No.2 in a conducive environment. 3. In compliance of the order dated 25.09.2021 the appellant along with his sister visited the house of respondent No.1 to meet respondent No.2 but respondent No.1 created hindrance, started abusing him and also restrained him from meeting his daughter in an harmonious environment as was directed by the Family Court, Raigarh. On account of this non-cooperative attitude of respondent No.1, the appellant provided a mobile phone to respondent No.2 so that he could talk with her, but respondent No.1 used to switch off the same. This made the appellant move a fresh application on 05.03.2022 seeking permission to meet respondent No.2 in the Court premises but the Family Court vide order dated 17.06.2022 (Annexure A-4) rejected the same and again directed respondent No.1 to allow the appellant to meet respondent No.2 in a cordial environment. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal {FA(MAT) 125/2022)} before this Court which has been decided on 21.09.2022 vide Annexure P-5 in the following terms:- “19. The following arrangements shall be made by both the appellant and respondent as father and mother: * Father would be able to engage with the child on a suitable video conference platform twice a week for 5 to 10 minutes. * In order to facilitate video conference, the appellant/father shall procure a smart phone for the child and would handover the same to the wife. * As and when the custody case comes up for hearing, the child would be allowed to meet the father in a child care center situated in the Court premises, if possible on working Saturdays of the Court so that the studies of the child, who is in 6th class, shall not be disturbed.” It is stated that whenever the appellant went to the Court premises, respondent No.1 failed to 3 bring respondent No.2 there over on one pretext or the other, and thus hindered the meeting of the appellant and respondent No.2. This happened multiple times. This being the situation, the appellant filed yet another application seeking permission to meet respondent No.2 in a more conducive and cordial environment. The appellant also requested for enabling him to take his daughter home on certain family functions and festivals enabling her to have a connect to her paternal family. Learned Family Court however dismissed the said application by imposing a cost of Rs. 2000/- upon the appellant. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the order passed by this Court in {FA(MAT) 125/2022)} no conducive environment is being offered by respondent No.1 to meet respondent No.2 and thus an obstacle is created by her for so doing. In such a situation, it is submitted, learned Family Court should have allowed the application by directing the respondent No.1 to allow the appellant to meet respondent No.2 in more conducive atmosphere. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amyra Dwivedi (Minor) Through Her Mother, Pooja v. Abhinav Dwivedi and another reported in (2021) 4 SCC 698. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order impugned and submits this Court has already given a positive direction in {FA(MAT) 125/2022)} and for that the application filed on 24.04.2023 was rejected. He submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order calling for any interference with the same, and therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Perusal of the record shows that there was a positive direction given by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court permitting the appellant to meet his daughter (respondent No.2 herein) but on one pretext or the other making allegations against respondent No.1 he has filed multiple applications for permission to visit and meet his daughter (respondent No.2). Since the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already given a positive direction, this Court cannot review the said order allowing the appellant to meet his daughter at some other place. The import of the order cited above that a child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents, has been well taken care of by this 4 Court while passing the order dated 21.09.2022, and therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned dated 20.09.2024 in this appeal. Needless to say that there is proper remedy to the appellant in case there is any violation of the order passed by this Court giving positive direction in respect of meeting of the appellant with respondent No.2. 9. Appeal, therefore, being without merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Jyotishi