LOKESH PRABHAKAR vs ARCHANA PRABHAKAR
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.02.2024
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 52/2024
LOKESH PRABHAKAR ….. Appellant
Through: Mr Mahesh Kumar Tiwari with Mr Bishnu Prasad Tiwari, Advs.
versus
ARCHANA PRABHAKAR ….. Respondent
Through: Mr Satya Ranjan Swain with Mr Ankush Kapoor, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM Appl.8509/2024
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 52/2024 & CM Appl.8510/2024
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Family Court Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2.1 Via the impugned order, the Family Court disposed of two applications filed by the appellant/father.
3. The record shows that via the first application, the prayer made by the appellant/father was that the respondent/mother should be directed to present their daughter for facilitating his visitation rights.
3.1 Via the second application, the appellant sought permission of the Family Court to take the male-child to a function organised by his employer for the kids of its employees.
3.2 Besides this, a further prayer was made that the appellant/father should be allowed to take the male-child to a mall, playground or a park on every Sunday without the respondent/mother being around.
4. As far as the first application is concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the prayer based on his interaction with the girl-child.
4.1 It is not in dispute that the girl-child is a teenager, aged about 13 years.
5. The record reveals that the Family Court interacted with the girl-child on 20.05.2023, and during the interaction, the girl-child cried and expressed that the appellant/father did not treat her like a daughter. The learned Judge also notes that the daughter refused to meet or speak with the appellant/father.
5.1 Given this position, the application was disposed of.
6. Insofar as the second application was concerned, the learned Judge rejected the prayer for taking the male-child for a Kids Day Out on the grounds that the disputants had been in litigation with each other and that the appellant/father has met the child after a gap of a few years.
6.1 With regard to the prayer for taking the male-child to a mall, playground or park on every Sunday, the Family Court has observed that there is an apprehension that meetings outside the Court premises could turn unpleasant because of erosion of faith and trust between the parties. Having regard to this aspect, the Family Court rejected this prayer as well.
7. What is not in dispute is that the appellant/father, via order dated 03.06.2023, has been granted visitation rights qua the children, on the 1st and 3rd Saturdays of the month, between 3.45 P.M. to 5.00 P.M, at the Childrens Room, Tiz Hazari, Delhi.
8. In the custody petition i.e., the main matter, we are told that the pleadings are complete and listed for hearing on 01.05.2024.
9. The learned Judge has rejected the first application after having a sense of the state of the relationship obtaining between the appellant/father and the girl-child. The learned Judge, after interacting with the girl-child, concluded that she did not wish to meet the appellant/father.
9.1 Although we are conscious of the fact that at times, children suffer from parental alienation syndrome because of the manner in which the child is brought up by the parent who has his/her custody, for the moment, we would not like to interfere as short interactions in a controlled environment may help in repairing the parent-child relationship.
10. Having regard to what is stated above, insofar as the application qua the male-child is concerned, for the moment, the appellant/father cannot be granted the right to interact with him outside the Court premises given the learned Judges apprehension that an unpleasant situation could get created. In realizing this conclusion, the learned Judge accounted for the fact that the appellant/father has just about started to meet with the male-child. On this count as well, no interference is called for.
11. Since the main matter is coming up for further proceedings on 01.05.2024, at this stage, we can only urge the Family Court to expedite the proceedings.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 15, 2024/pmc
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 52/2024 Page 7 of 7