Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner is defendant in Case No. 01/2018 ‘Parmjit vs. Neetu Kainth & Another’ initiated by the respondent under Section 7 r/w
Section 10 of the Guardianship and Wards Act. In the proceedings of Suit No. 01/2018 as mentioned aforesaid, the respondent had sought the custody
and guardianship of defendant no. 2, his minor son. During the pendency of the proceedings the respondent herein had filed an application under
Section 12 of the Guardianship and Wards Act seeking an interim custody of the child, which was numbered as Paper No. 12C. There had been
intricate proceedings inter se between the parties before various forums with which this Court is not concerned at this stage when it is seized with the
orders impugned under challenge i.e. 11.09.2018 and 24.09.2018.
2. What is revealed from the scrutiny of the records is that the order dated 11.09.2018 was the date fixed for considering the application Paper No.
12C, which was filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Act for getting the interim custody of respondent no. 2. On the said application the
date fixed was 05.10.2018. On the request of the plaintiff/respondent, the Court observes that with the consent of the present petitioner the date was
preponed for 24.09.2018 from earlier fixed date i.e. 05.10.2018 and was fixed for considering the application Paper No. 12C under Section 12 of the
Act. By the said date petitioner was directed to file her objections to paper 12C filed by respondent on 10.01.2018. Order dated 11.09.2018 is
extracted hereinbelow:
“fnukad 11-9-2018 izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkFkZuki= 12lh isâ€k fd;k x;kA i{kdkj mifLFkr gSA izkFkZuki= dh izfr izfroknh dks miyC/k djkbZ x;hA bl
ekeys esa fnukad 05-10-2018 fu;r gSA ;kph }kjk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k fd bl ekeys esa utnhd dh frfFk yxkdj vUrfje izkFkZuki= dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk,A
i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 24-9-2018 fu;r dh tkrh gSA fu;r fnukad rd foi{kh izkFkZuki= 12lh ds fo:| viuh vkifRr;ka izLrqr djs rFkk viuk
izfrokni= Hkh izLrqr djsaA i=koyh okLrs fuLrkj.k vUrfje izkFkZuki= 12lh fu;r fnukad dks isâ€k gksA
Sd/-
¼efyd ,e0 lqYrku½
iz/kku U;k;k/khâ€k
dqVqEc U;k;ky;
nsgjknwuAâ€
3. On 24.09.2018 the petitioner is said to have filed an application Paper No. 13D, which has been annexed with the Writ Petition as Annexure-19 to
the Writ Petition, wherein, she has sought the following reliefs:
“izkFkZuk
vr% U;k;ky; ls fouez izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr of.kZr fLFkfr esa izkfFkZuh dks ewyokn la[;k 1@2018] vUrxZr xkjtu ,.M okMZ ,DV esa vf/koDrk
fu;qDr djus gsrq] izfrokn i= nkf[ky djus gsrq o 12 dh vkifRr nkf[ky djus gsrq ,d ekg dk le; iznku djus dh d`ik djsaAâ€
4. Order sheet shows that petitioner after appearing in the proceedings on 13.07.2018 had asked for the documents filed by respondent. She through
her counsel had appeared there after on various dates including the date 11.09.2018, when she consented for preponement of the date to 24.09.2018.
If that be so, the application paper no. 13D was a deliberate act of delay consideration of application paper 12C on the pretext of change of counsel,
this act if permitted to perpetuate it would be an abuse of process and harassment for the adversary to the proceedings.
5. As a matter of fact by virtue of the said application Paper No. 13D, the petitioner had prayed for grant of time to file objection against the
application Paper No. 12C filed by respondent under Section 12 of the Act. By the impugned order dated 24.09.2018, the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dehradun, has only rejected the application Paper No. 13D of the petitioner seeking time to file objection to Paper No. 12C and had posted the
matter for 28.09.2018 for hearing on the application Paper No. 12C filed by the respondent. The reason, which has assigned herein while rejecting the
application, was that the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings of Guardianship and Wards Act for one reason or another, which runs contrary to
spirit and purpose of Act which is based on paramount consideration of interest of minor who is the subject on account of scrupulous differences
between the parties for which atleast he has not be blamed, yet made to suffer.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that while considering the application of petitioner Paper No. 13D the Court has proceeded to make
observations pertaining to the orders passed on 9. 05.2018 in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby, the petitioner was directed to
produce the child and had given a meeting right to the respondent. He submits that this order has already been challenged by her in a Writ Petition No.
1849/2018 ‘Mrs. Neetu Kainth & Another vs. Parmjit Singh Sagar’ dated 04.10.2018 in which she has raised a question regards the jurisdiction
could not have passed an order of meeting rights because the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. ought to have been considered within the ambit
of jurisdiction vested with the Court while dealing with the said application. His apprehension is that this finding recorded in the impugned order dated
24.09.2018 with regards to the order dated 09.05.2018 in relation to the grant of meeting rights in a proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which
has been stayed by this Court, may prejudice the adjudication of the application Paper No. 12C preferred by the respondent under Section 12 of the
Guardianship and Wards Act.
7. However, it is made clear that apprehension at this stage is unfounded for the reason that as far as the propriety of the order dated 9. 05.2018 is
concerned, that has already been kept in abeyance by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2018 dated 04.10.2018.
8. In that view of the matter and also as per the law, the direction, which has been issued by the order dated 24.09.2018 for deciding the application
under Section 12 of the Act is not causing any prejudice to the petitioner, but the apprehension which has been expressed by him is to be clarified to
that extent that the Family Court while deciding decide the application Paper No. 12C under Section 12 of the Act would decide independently without
being influenced by the order dated 09.05.2018 passed in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which has been stayed by this Court.
9. Subject to the above observations, Writ Petition stands dismissed.
