RANCHI, India, Feb. 22 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 20:

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment dated 07.06.2024 and decree signed and sealed dated 13.06.2024 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court-II, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.210 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/appellant herein under Section 7 and 17 read with Section 25 of the Guardianship and Ward Act, 1890 for custody and visitation rights of his minor son Aalap Chakraborty, has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the petition, which required to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:

3. It is the case of the petitioner-husband (appellant herein) that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent-wife (respondent herein) was solemnized as per the Special Marriage Act on 03.02.2016 at Purulia West Bengal. From the happy wedlock, a son, namely, Master Aalap Chakraborty was born on 11.11.2017. The differences arose between the parties and they amicably decided to resolve their dispute by filing a petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act.

4. The marriage was eventually dissolved, vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 486 of 2021 and a decree was drawn accordingly.

5. However, the petitioner being the biological father of the issue born from the said wedlock sought intervention of the Court for allowing him to visit and take custody of the minor son Aalap Chakraborty. The petitioner has been trying to communicate with the respondent and her family members but they have been incommunicado and therefore, having failed to take the custody or even visit his minor son, the petitioner has no remedy accordingly preferred the suit for custody and visitation right of his son.

6. It has further been stated that the petitioner having failed to even speak to the respondent, served the respondent with a legal notice dated 04.01.2023, wherein, the petitioner also demanded that the minor son may be allowed to at least meet the petitioner. The respondent, thereafter, replied to the said legal notice through her lawyer refusing to let the petitioner to meet his minor son.

7. It has been stated that the petitioner had first contacted the respondent in December 2021 after the grant of divorce to allow him to meet his minor son. The cause of action further arose on 16.01.2023 when the respondent in reply to the legal notice categorically denied the visitation rights of the petitioner to meet his minor son.

8. Accordingly, prayer had been made before the learned Family Court to allow the suit and grant the petitioner (appellant herein) to enjoy visitation rights towards his minor son, Aalap Chakraborty and/or to allow the minor son of the parties to travel to the house of the petitioner in Purulia during his vacations and/or allow the petitioner to meet his minor son until the final disposal of the present case and/or allow the petitioner to meet his minor son twice every month and also allow him to stay with his son for 2 days once every 15 days and pass any other order.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqGFeeMiDb%2FMBW6L8rbCWnDbPqyFgSzHDRgxfmH6npHhC&caseno=FA/189/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010253292024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.