Intellectual Property Rights: Practice and Drafting by Adv Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Denied vistation

Page no : 2

mission   28 May 2018

Kumar Doeb, As per you now rounds of delibration will happen and in end child's voice will be final. It is written in both orders. THat is good excuse all mother will use and it is creation of fatherless society. Painful bust true.


Kumar Doab (FIN)     28 May 2018

Originally posted by : mission
Kumar Doeb, As per you now rounds of delibration will happen and in end child's voice will be final. It is written in both orders. THat is good excuse all mother will use and it is creation of fatherless society. Painful bust true.


IT is Shri Kumar Doab.

Would you correct.

I am trying level best to post for you.

Kumar Doab (FIN)     28 May 2018

IT has already been posted that;

Your previous and last posts are different. If child is doctored court may still grant opportunity for child to interact with both parents and have love affection and care from both. Your own counsel should chose citations per facts and need of the matter and rely more on irrefutable evidences and thrashing arguments.

The judgments are to be pursued from all possible perspectives and fine tune the evidences and arguments.

Your own lawyer is to help you per facts of the case.


28. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant partly succeeds in his appeal. We accordingly direct the respondent to comply with the terms of the mutual settlement in so far as the visitation rights of the father appellant herein to meet Master Shravan is concerned


22.           Be that as it may, undoubtedly, the order dated 3.5.2008,


so far as the custody of the child, Kislay, is concerned, has proved


unworkable as the respondents succeeded in frustrating the same


totally. The child has been tutored by the respondents to the extent


that he has no inclination towards the applicant father.             The






respondents have ensured that all efforts of the applicant or his parents


to meet the child turned futile. The child, Kislay, has been instructed


not to pick up the phone, so that even by chance he may not hear the


voice of the applicant or his parents.



Kumar Doab (FIN)     28 May 2018


‘The use of the word 'ordinarily' cannot be over-emphasized. It ordains a presumption, albeit a rebuttable one’

Supreme Court of India

Roxann Sharma vs Arun Sharma on 17 February, 2015

Bench: Vikramajit Sen, C. Nagappan


20 We transfer the temporary custody of Thalbir to the Appellant/Mother with the direction that both of them shall reside in the address given by her, viz, House No.80, Magnolia, Ground Floor, Bin Waddo, Betalbatim, Goa and will not leave that territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior leave. We further direct that the Respondent/Father shall have visitation rights between 2.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on every Tuesday and Thursday, and from 2.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on Saturdays. These Orders are purely temporary in nature. The Civil Judge should decide the Petition/application pending before him with expedition, as directed by the High Court, without being influenced by any observations made by us hereinabove.

Kumar Doab (FIN)     28 May 2018

Delhi High Court

Manpreet Singh Bhatia vs Sumita Bhatia on 20 October, 2016

20. The husband stopped complying with the memorandum because the wife opened up multifarious litigation fronts and the husband rightly believed that using his money, his wife was troubling him.

24. Though this is not a petition concerning the visitation rights of the parties, a father who is ready and willing to pay maintenance for his daughter is also entitled to see his daughter at least on festivals, her birthday or at regular interval.


Bombay High Court

Mohan Kumar Rayana vs Komal Mohan Rayana on 16 January, 2009

Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, D.B.Bhosale


10.7. In Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v/s Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, (1982) 2 SCC 544, the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that the question of custody of the child must necessarily be considered from only the view point of the welfare of the child. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that the father was obsessed with the idea of having exclusive control of the children, he has been trying to poison the minds of the children against the mother with the only object of completely alienating them from their mother, and in his the spiteful obsession, the father fails to very great harm done to the children.

appreciate The judgment of this Court was ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court allowing the custody of the child to the father.

It is further observed that where the child is not in a position to express any intelligent preference between his/her parents, mature thinking is necessary to decide as to what will enure to his/her benefit and welfare.


50….Both the appellant as well as the respondent must cooperate with each other in implementing the order of access as well as sharing of school vacations. The respondent-mother shall not take any step or act in any manner so as to prevent the appellant from having access to Anisha in the manner indicated above. Likewise, once Anisha is handed over to appellant, he too must honour the aforesaid arrangements and not keep Anisha with him beyond the time stipulated above. Similarly, the respondent-mother shall take initiative and all necessary steps to ensure that Anisha spends 50% of the school vacations with her father. The continuance of Anisha in the existing school or the change over of school shall be decided by the appellant and respondent in consultation with each other.

Kumar Doab (FIN)     28 May 2018

Supreme Court of India

Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008

Author: . A Pasayat

Bench: Arijit Pasayat, G.S. Singhvi


47. In partial modification of the order passed by the District Judge and the High Court, we direct that the visitation rights shall be in the following terms:

(1) During long holidays/vacations covering more than two weeks the child will be allowed to be in the company of the father for a period of seven days.


 (2) The period shall be fixed by the father after due intimation to the mother who shall permit the child to go with the father for the aforesaid period.

(3) For twice every month preferably on Saturday or Sunday or a festival day, mother shall allow the child to visit the father from morning to evening. Father shall take the child and leave him back at the mother's place on such days.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 12.8.2008 Date of Order: 25th September, 2008 CM(M) No. 752/2000 25.09.2008 Ram Murti Chopra and Anr. ... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.Gautam, Advocate Versus Nagesh Tyagi ... Respondent



If you are at Delhi and if you wish you may discuss in person with LCI expert Mr. Shonee Kapoor. He has exclusive practice in Family matters…and also has a well nourished blog;

mission   29 May 2018

Thanks kumar doab for valuable order extracts, Sorry for wrong spelling of your name.

Will build case in simmilar lines.

Kumar Doab (FIN)     30 May 2018

Build your case on facts of the mater and merits and in consultation with your own very able LOCAL senior counsel, as already suggested.

You are welcome!

Have a Heart Foundation (Sales & Mktng)     02 February 2021

A Survey is being conducted for Reforms in functioning of Family Courts in India.

Separated Parents in Child Custody / Visitation disputes are requested to participate and fill the form in link below.

Our Children Deserve Better

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register