Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3128 (GAU)

SHRI GAURAV SINGH v. SMT JHARNA DEURI

I.A.(Civil)/378/2026 · 2026-03-24

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010025012026 2026:GAU-AS:4312 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/378/2026 SHRI GAURAV SINGH S/O AMARJIT SINGH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 7 N, PIYA TOWER, RADHA NAGAR, BARMOTORIA, CHASAL, SIXMILE, VIP ROAD,P.O.-UDAYAN VIHAR, P.S.- DISPUR, DIST.-KAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN- 781171 VERSUS SMT JHARNA DEURI D/O LATE BIRENDRA NATH DEURI, W/OSRI GAURAV SINGH, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 401, LAXMI ENCLAVE, SATGAON, P.O. AND P.S.- SATGAON, DISTRICTKAMRUP M, ASSAM, PIN-781171 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY, MR D DAS,MR B P SARMAH,B SAHA,MR. C CHAKRAVARTY Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 25.03.2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. J. Roy assisted by Mr. C. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent who has filed this interlocutory application with prayer for partial modification/ clarification of the order dated 05.01.2026 Page No.# 2/2 passed by this Court in the connection with CRP (IO)No.538/2025. 2. It is submitted that vide order dated 05.01.2026, the proceedings of Misc. (G) Case No.131/2022 has been stayed. The applicant who is the father of the minor child is being highly prejudiced as the applicant is paying the maintenance of his child and he has been debarred from visitation rights of his child to visit and meet his child. 3. The learned counsel, Mr. D. Borah is present for the opposite party/ wife and has no objection if the order dated 05.01.2026 of stay is modified to the extent that applicant is allowed to visit his child according to the earlier order passed by the learned Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc. (G) Case No.131/2022 whereunder and whereby the applicant was allowed to visit his child under certain conditions formulated by the learned Family Court. 4. Considering the submissions of both the sides, this interlocutory application is allowed to the extent that the applicant, i.e. the father of the child, is allowed to visit his child according to the conditions formulated and imposed by the learned Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati in connection with Misc. (G) Case No.131/2022. 5. In terms of the above observation, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant