1 CGHC010394512024 2026:CGHC:29872-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 387 of 2024 1 - Ved Singh Sondray S/o Late Shri Dayaram Sondary Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Service, Posted As Head Constable R/o Village- Bodhapara, Thana- Lalpur, Distt- Mungeli ( C.G.). Official Residence- D- 14, Police Colony, Rawanbhatha Mungeli, Distt- Mungeli ( C.G.). ... Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Priyanka Sondray W/o Shri Ved Singh Sondray Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Bodhipara, Thana- Fastarpur, Tahsil- Mungeli, Distt- Mungeli ( C.G.). ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : None DB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge JUDGEMENT ON BOARD 10/07 /2026 Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. This First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgement and decree dated 24.09.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No. 18/2023 by the learned Family Court Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.). 2. The parties are being referred to as per their description before the learned Family Court as Applicant (Father) and Non-Applicant (Mother). 3. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicant has filed an application under Section 6 & 7 of the Hindu Minority and 2 Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1956) for appointing him as the natural guardian of a minor male child aged about 08 years, who at that time was residing with his mother. 4. The application submitted by the applicant was replied by the non- applicant and had prayed for rejection of the said application on the ground as mentioned therein. Learned Family Court based on the pleadings had formulated four issues for consideration and upon appreciation of the pleadings and the documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, had dismissed the application by the impugned judgement and decree. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant after arguing for sometime would submit that he is not pressing this present appeal on merits. However, is only making a prayer that the applicant being father is a natural guardian and therefore, the applicant may be granted visitation right to meet his son residing with his mother. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record along with the appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgement, it appears that the relationship between the applicant with the minor child as father and son is not in dispute. Learned Family Court upon appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record came to know that the application submitted by the applicant under Section 6 of the Act, 1956 could not be allowed. The learned Family Court ought to have granted visitation right in welfare of the child. The applicant being father is having love and affection towards the child and the minor child also could not have been denied the care, affection, love and protection of any of the two parents. Father’s care and guidance is important for the minor at formative and impersonable stage of his life. Love of the father in 3 upbringing and grooming of minor make child to face the realities of life cannot be undermined. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashita Sahu VS. State of Rajasthan reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67 has observed as under:- “22. A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every reunion may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent, the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights. 23. The concept of visitation rights is not fully developed in India. Most courts while granting custody to one spouse do not pass any orders granting visitation rights to the other spouse. As observed earlier, a child has a human right to have the love and affection of both the parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents.” 9. In the above facts of the case and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, keeping in mind the paramount consideration to be welfare of the child, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has committed error in not granting the visitation rights to the father while dismissing his application filed under Section 6 of the Act, 1956. 4 10.As from the contents of the order dated 24.09.2024 and the submission made by the counsel for appellant, it is appearing that the applicant is working in the Police Department and is posted as Constable. Applicant and Non-Applicant are residing in different places, we grant visitation rights to the applicant and it is ordered that applicant would be entitled to meet with the minor son on every 1st Sunday of the month between 11:00 AM to 04:00 PM in the house of the non-applicant and may also take the child with him within the vicinity of the village or township where the non-applicant is residing along with her child within the time specified. The applicant is also held entitled to meet his minor child just before the day of every Diwali Festival. 11.While maintaining the order passed by the learned Family Court dated 24.09.2024 rejecting the application filed under Section 6 of the Act, 1956, the prayer of visitation right made before this Court is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 12.Let the judgement and decree be framed accordingly. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY