The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ashish Dubey vs Sara Carriere Dubey consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma expounded that the circumstances for grant of visitation rights are dynamic and keep on changing from time to time and that Courts while deciding such applications must examine the matter independently without being influenced by any other material. The paramount consideration must be the welfare of the child.
OR
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ashish Dubey vs Sara Carriere Dubey consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that serious allegations and counter allegations by husband and wife are very common in matters regarding visitation rights. Hence, the Courts every time, while hearing the parties, have to maintain a strict balance and are required to see that their observations are not blended with any sentiments and remain confined to the core matter in issue.
Facts
The petition was filed challenging the impugned order whereby the learned Trial Court restrained him from interacting with his children during the court ordered visitations for the month of June.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that though the petition had become infructuous, yet the observations made in the impugned judgment may come in the way and prejudice the petitioner in multifarious litigations pending between the parties. It was also contended that these observations were made without any basis and thus, are liable to be expunged.
Respondent: It was contended that the observations were made based on the material available on record, so there is no ground for expunging these remarks. But the petition had become infructuous as the visitation rights were confined to the month of June.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that:;
“The Courts while deciding such applications have to examine the matter independently without being influenced by any other material. It goes without saying that every time, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. It is an admitted position that the petition under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is still pending before the learned Trial Court and is yet to be finally adjudicated. The endeavor of the Court should be to put an end to the acrimonious litigation to the extent as possible. The endeavor of the Courts should also be to keep the focus right so as to get the matter adjudicated within the framework of law and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. In such matters, serious allegations and counter allegations by husband and wife are very common. The Courts every time, while hearing the parties, have to maintain a strict balance and is required to see that the observations made by it are not blended with any sentiments and remain confined to the core matter in issue.”
It opined that the visitation rights granted by the impugned order were related to the summer vacations and thus, the petition had become infructuous.
Judgment
The Bench, without going into the merits of the case, concluded that if any application is moved by any of the parties for visitation right/ interim custody or while deciding the petition under Section 12 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the Principal Judge, Family Courts shall decide the matter independently of any observation made in the impugned order.
Case: Ashish Dubey vs Sara Carriere Dubey
Citation: CM(M) 618/2022
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Decided on: 17th August 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments