- (1.) PETITIONER by way of filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order for setting aside the order dated 08.06.2012 (Annexure -8) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, at Jamshedpur in G.S. Case No.11 of 2012, whereby the learned court below has rejected the interlocutory application dated 28.10.2011 filed on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent. Perused the impugned order as well as other material placed on record. On perusal of paragraph No.5 of the impugned order, it transpires that the court below has rejected the application moved by the petitioner for visitation mainly by assigning a reason that in view of the amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties, no new condition can be imposed upon the parties. Moreover the respondent is ready and willing to honour the terms and conditions of the said settlement and, therefore, there is no need to make any modification in visitation right. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring paragraph 4 of the petition submitted that with regard to custody of child the parties are agreed to allow the petitioner to meet the child in every two months starting from January 2010, in between 10.30 to 12.30 A.M. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring Annexure -2 i.e report submitted by the Conciliator, JHALSA that the petitioner -husband has been instructed to withdraw the application filed for the custody of the minor daughter being G. & WC Case No.290 of 2009 pending before the Ist Additional Judge, Family Court, Bangluru since the same was filed during the conciliation proceeding. However, parties were given liberty to file an appropriate application for the same, before the competent court after conclusion of the conciliation proceeding. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the court below by way of making an application dated 28.10.2011, but the court below has failed to appreciate the grounds which were canvassed by the petitioner before the court below, including the facts that the petitioner was given liberty by the Conciliator upon the agreement arrived at between the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent while supporting the order passed by the court below strongly opposed and submitted that the petitioner under the one or another pretext made an attempt to prolonged the proceedings of G.S Case No.11 of 2012 which is pending before the court. The learned counsel for the respondent by referring the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court pointed out that the parties to the proceedings have been directed to extend co -operation for expeditious disposal of the suit and the court below is also directed to conclude the trial within a period of nine months from the date of finalization of issues in the matter.;