Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010023532025 2025:GAU-AS:10544 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/125/2025 SOURABH JYOTI DAS S/O- LATE PRAFULLA CH DAS, R/O- OF VILLAGE BAMUNDI, P.O.- BAMUNDI, P.S.- SUALKUCHI, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, 781103 VERSUS RUBY KALITA W/O- SOURABH JYOTI DAS, C/O- SMTI. PRANITA KALITA, VILLAGE BATHAN, P.O.- SRIHATI, P.S.- SUALKUCHI, DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM-781103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U B SARMA, MRS. G SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A K BHUYAN, P BHOWMICK,N.R. SHARMA,MR J DAS,MR A SHARMA,MR A TALUKDAR,MS. N CHOUDHURY,MS. B BHUYAN BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 11.08.2025 Heard Mr. U. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Correctness, or otherwise, of the order, dated 16.11.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, (‘Trial Page No.# 2/4 Court’ for short), in Misc. (G) Case No. 65/2024, is challenged in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2.1. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 16.11.2024, the learned Trial Court had allowed the petition No. 1913/2024, dated 03.08.2024, filed by the respondent herein seeking visitation schedule, by fixing a specific time, place and day for the petitioner herein, to visit his minor child, who is in the custody of the respondent herein. 3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court,, vide impugned order dated 16.11.2024, has allowed the petitioner herein, to meet his minor son on 2nd Saturday/Sunday and 4th Saturday/Sunday of every month, or on any holiday, for at least 2-3 hours, from 10 A.M. to 12 P.M./1 P.M., or from 4 P.M. to 6 P.M./7 P.M., in any public place, such as Park, Mall, etc., near the house of the respondent herein, where the minor child is presently residing, in accordance to the convenience of the minor child. 3.1. Mr. Sarma, further submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court failed to apply judicial mind and curtailed sufficient visitation right of the petitioner to meet his minor child and as such, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 3.2. Mr. Sarma, further submits that the petitioner, being a serviceman, could not leave his station on 2nd Saturday and 4th Saturday. But, he can leave the station on 2nd Sunday and 4th Sunday. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the period of 2-3 hours, to meet his child is not adequate and he was also not allowed to contract his child over phone. Mr. Sarma also submits that for the welfare of the child, the said duration needs to be increased and he may be allowed to contract his child over phone. 3.3. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sarma has referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Page No.# 3/4 Rajasthan and Others, in Criminal Appeal No. 127/2020 [arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 7390/2019], and in the case of Soumitra Kumar Nahar Vs. Parul Nahar, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 599. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order was passed after hearing both the parties and the same is a consent order and that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality and as such, it requires no interference of this Court. 4.1. Mr. Bhuyan, further submits that the petitioner herein, while coming to visit his child, often created ruckus in the house of the respondent herein; and that the respondent has no objection in the event of increasing the visiting period to 4/5 hours, but not at the cost of the welfare of the child, who is suffering from some ailment also. Under such circumstances, Mr. Bhuyan submits that the impugned order requires no interference of this Court. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 16.11.2024. 6. It is well settled that where the issue of custody of child and other related issues etc. are involved, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. He cannot be allowed to become the victim in the battle between the fighting spouses. And balancing their right and interest in such a proceeding is always a difficult task. 7. There is also no dispute that a child of tender age requires the love, affection, company and protection of both the parents, which is not only the requirement of a child, but the same is also a basic human right. 8. In the instant case, it appears that the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties and the same appears to be a consent order, as submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the respondent. Further, it appears that the petitioner has been given sufficient Page No.# 4/4 visitation right. He has been allowed to visit the child on 2nd Saturday/Sunday and 4th Saturday/Sunday of every month, or on any holiday, for at least 2-3 hours, from 10 A.M. to 12 P.M./1 P.M., or from 4 P.M. to 6 P.M./7 P.M., in any public place, such as Park, Mall, etc., near the house of the respondent. Mr. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, fairly submits that the respondent has no objection in the event of extending the period of 2/3 hours to 4/5 hours. But, the only objection of the respondent is that the petitioner herein whenever came to meet his child, he always created ruckus. 9. Thus, having tested the impugned order on the touchstone of the principle discussed herein above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, dated 16.11.2024, so passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati warrants no interference of this Court. 10. However, taking note of the submissions, so made by the learned counsels of both the parties, in respect of in-adequacy of the period of meeting of the petitioner with his minor child, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, and in the event of filing such an application, the learned Principal Judge, after hearing both the parties, shall pass a reasoned order balancing the right and interest of both the parties, and of-course, the welfare of the minor child. 11. In terms of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant