An Order Extending Visiting Hours Was Passed By The Delhi High Court Without Compromising Section 151.

CASE TITLE:

Ms. Runjhun Garg, Mr. Himanshu Vats, Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal and Mr. Krishnagopal Abhay vs Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Ms. Shambhavi and Ms. Sakshi Anand

DATE OF ORDER:

12^TH December,2023

BENCH:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

PARTIES:

Plaintiff: Ms. Runjhun Garg, Mr. Himanshu Vats, Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal and Mr. Krishnagopal Abhay

Respondent: Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Ms. Shambhavi and Ms. Sakshi Anand

SUBJECT: The appellant has filed this appeal to contest the order dated October 7, 2023, issued by the learned Family Court-02, South East, Saket, New Delhi, which granted the appellant visitation rights based on an application submitted by the appellant under Section 151 CPC.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Section 151 of CPC: Nothing in this Code shall be construed as restricting or in any way affecting the Court's inherent authority to issue orders that may be required to further justice or guard against improper use of the court system.

OVERVIEW:

5. The Family Court is of the opinion that given the young ages of the two minor children, it would not be appropriate to grant the petitioner overnight access to the children. However, as per the respondent's agreement, visitation hours have been extended by one hour, to take place every third Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Children Room of Family Court, Saket, with the respondent and counsellor present.
5. However, the petitioner is permitted to spend the specified amount of time with both minor children on the following dates: April 12 (children's birthday), July 18 (grandmother's birthday), October 17 (grandparents' anniversary), November 1 (father's birthday), November 12 (grandfather's birthday), and November 14 (children's day). The petitioner may meet with the children on the planned third Saturday of the month if any of the aforementioned days happen to be holidays.
5. The petitioner then appealed to the high court because they were unhappy with the ruling.

 ISSUES RAISED

5. Whether the appellant’s request to have his visiting hours extended will be granted or not?

          ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES

5. The appellant's learned attorney argues in court that the learned Family Court only granted visitation, and only for two hours on every third Saturday between 11 AM and 1 PM in the Children Room of Family Court, Saket, without taking into account the other reliefs requested by the appellant in the application. She submits that the time frame that has been set does not include a deliberate visitation for the appellant in this case. She argues that Sunday must also be included in the visitation, and it must last for a suitable amount of time. Apart from that, she argues that visitation ought to be permitted on other occasions, such as the birthdays of the children, the grandmother, the grandparents' anniversary, etc.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Kajal Chandra, the respondent's knowledgeable attorney, would contest the appeal by arguing that the children are only 4 and a half years old, so any relief awarded by the Family Court is adequate, and extending the visitation period would not be in their best interests.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

5. The court believes that the appellant's right to visit the children should be extended by one hour, i.e., on the third Saturday from 11 AM to 2 PM in the Children Room of Family Court, Saket, in the presence of the respondent and the counsellor, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the age of the children and the limited duration granted by the Family Court.
5. It is sufficient to say that on the day of visitation, grandparents of the children may also use their visitation privileges for a period of one and a half hours, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
5. A report about the appellant's visitation conducted in accordance with this order must be filed by the counsellor who works in the Children Room.
5. As stated above, the court closes the appeal. In the event that the appellant wishes to extend the visitation period, he is free to submit the necessary application to Family Court-02. The same will be determined in compliance with the law by the Family Court.
5. We take note of the appellant's attorney's request for visitation to be allowed even on Sundays. District Courts are closed on Sundays and second Saturdays, as is documented. and consequently, no visitation order may be granted on those days. A party to a lawsuit can undoubtedly benefit from visitation on these days as well if the kids' room is left open.
5. The court believes that all district children's rooms should remain open on Sundays and second Saturdays from 10 AM to 5 PM. This way, if a court issues a visitation order, it can also specify that the visitation take place in the children's room, Family Court, District Court, on every second Saturday and Sunday. The Registrar General of this Court shall issue the necessary directives in that regard to the District Judges and Principal Judges of the Family Courts in each District.

 CONCLUSION:

5. The court dismissed as infructuous stating that the appellant's right to visit the children in this case should be extended by one hour, i.e., on the third Saturday from 11 AM to 2 PM in the Children Room, Family Court, Saket, with the respondent and counsel present.
5. A report regarding the visitation that the appellant conducted in accordance with this order must be filed by the counsellor who works in the Children Room.