Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5255 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mahtab Alam Respondent :- Additional District Judge And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Harish Chandra Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Harish Chandra Mishra learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant.
The petitioner is assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 19.07.20018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Family Court, Jhansi, whereby, an application seeking expert opinion of counsellor in case No. 5 of 2017 (Mehtab Alam vs. Rajia Sultan) filed under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act 1890, has been rejected.
It appears that the marriage between the plaintiff- petitioner as well as second respondent was solemnized on 18.02.2010 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, one son namely Master Aariz Alam was born on 28.05.2011. It appears that thereafter the relations relations between the parties were not cordial and they had separated as per Sariyat Rules.
The present application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 had been moved by the petitioner with an intent that he may be permitted to have frequent visit of his son and custody of the son may also be handed over to him. Meanwhile, he has also moved an application seeking expert opinion of the counsellor in the said case based on the ground that the child, who has deposed before the Court, made a statement that the father Mehtab Alam used to beat him as well as his mother.
The said statement of fact has been objected by the petitioner precisely on the ground that alongwith Master Aariz Alam, who was born on 28.05.2011, his wife left the home on 24.05.2012. At the said juncture, he was hardly one year old child and, as such, statement of one year child would not be given weightage.
In this background, the petitioner asked for the expert opinion of a counsellor so as to clear whether the said statement had been made voluntarily or the same was tutored. The said application was turned down by the order impugned.
In the facts and circumstances, without adverting on the merit of the case, the Court is of the considered opinion that the application so filed under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act 1890 is to be decided as expeditiously as possible. Meanwhile, the Court may also ensure that the petitioner, who his the father of master Aariz Alam, may also be permitted to meet his son frequently but that should be ensured with the leave of the Court.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition filed stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.9.2018 Arun Gangwar