Petitioner, who is the father of minor Siddharth has filed this Civil Application for permitting him to take Siddarth from Madras to Baroda for a period of ten days in compliance with the orders Annexures A and B to the application. It is pleaded in the application that the vacation in the school where Siddharth is studying commenced from 20.9.1996, and it will end on 6.10.1996.
2.Opponent, who is the wife of the petitioner and mother of Siddharth has filed her affidavit denying all the allegations made in the application, and has stated that the vacation in the school of Siddharth commences from 23.9.1996 and it will end on 3.10.1996, and the school reopens on 4.10.1996.
3.The background of the present litigation is that the petitioner and the opponent are husband and wife and out of their wedlock, son Siddharth was born in the year 1988. Due to some differences, the petitioner and the opponent separated and at present the opponent-wife is residing at Madras, The petitioner initiated proceedings under S.12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 praying for the interim custody of minor son Siddharth, during the pendency of the main application before the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad. After hearing both the sides, the learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, passed order dated 6.4.1996, below application Ex.5 in Civil Misc.Application No. 88 of 1995, which reads as under :
" The application is partly allowed.
The request of the petitioner for interim custody of the minor child is hereby refused. His alternative prayers are allowed. The opponent is ordered to give an adequate access of minor Siddharth to the petitioner, as and when he visits Madras, and allow him to spend a day or two in Madras with minor in a Hotel or at the residence of his friends or relatives.
It is further ordered to the opponent that she would allow the petitioner to take the child to Baroda during the vacation for TEN DAYS in a row, and after said period, the petitioner shall send back the minor to Madras. The expenses of bringing and sending minor back are to be borne by the petitioner. "
4.The petitioner has filed this application contending that he was permitted by the lower court to take child Siddharth to Baroda during the vacation for 10 days in a row and therefore, he is entitled to take the child during the ensuing vacation also.
5.I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The learned 2nd Joint District Judge, in the operative part of his order quoted above, has used the words 'the vacation', and the petitioner was allowed to take the minor child for 10 days in a row during 'the summer vacation'. The vacation which has already started is of 11 days only. Therefore, in my opinion, the order of the lower court allowing the petitioner to take Siddharth from Madras to Baroda for a period of 10 days in a row cannot be made applicable to the present vacation which is of the duration of 11 days.
6.It is requested by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner can take the child for half the period of the vacation, i.e. for 5 days. However, Mr.Nanavati, Ld. Advocate for the opponent has made a statement at the bar that minor Siddharth has gone out of Madras during vacation and is likely to return to Madras on 30.9.1996, and therefore, it is not possible to send Siddharth with the petitioner to Baroda for 5 days. Therefore, the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
7.Apart from the above facts, even otherwise, the learned Judge has confined his order to 'the vacation' only which in my opinion related to summer vacation, and therefore, the petitioner was granted time of 10 days in a row to bring the child from Madras to Baroda. Hence I do not find any merit in this civil application. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Dt.26.9.1996.( M. H. Kadri, J. )