IN THE COURT OF SUDHIR PARMAR,ADJ PRINCIPAL

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GURGAON

Case no- …………………

Petition u/s Sec 125 CrPC

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Neelu Pal .………………………………Petitioner

No 2

VERSUS

Mr.Ravikant Lakhanpal ...…………………………….

….Respondent

URGENT APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 125 CrPC ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT-FATHER SEEEKING IMMEDIATE DISPOSAL FOR
MEANINGFUL REGULAR VISITATION WEEKELY ACCESS TO THE CHILD

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

(1) That the applicant is the respondent in the original

petition filed by the wife.

(2) That admittedly out of the wedlock of the

petitioner no 2 and the respondent a male child -
 namely Vihaan Lakhanpal was born on 07 Feb
2013.

(3) That the applicant supported the petitioner and

the minor child even though she had differences
with family members of the respondent and
therefore entangled the respondent and his
family in a web of litigations and the situation
deteriorated .

(4) That the applicant been the natural father of

Master Vihaan Lakhanpal has even then tried to
visit the minor child , but the petitioner no 2 and
her father have been threatening of implicating
the applicant in further criminal cases and have
the illegally deprived the minor of the love and
affections of the applicant .

(5) That the petitioner has by abuse of the process of

law , deprived the minor from the love and
affection of his father which is highly unethical.

(6) That Master Vihaan Lakhanpal is now 4 years

and 10 month years old , who is deprived of
meeting his biological father , which is inhumane
and it is settled law that the differences between
the spouses , should not come in way of proper
 development of the minor child and hence
guidelines have been framed for shared
parenting , but the petitioner no 2 and her family
member thinking themselves to be over and
above law , has deprived the respondent of even
visitation rights of Master Vihaan Lakhanpal .

(7) That thus the denial of custody / visitation of

Master Vihaan Lakhanpal to respondent by the
petitioner no 2 and her family members is not
only abuse of law , is also not in the Interest of
the Welfare of the minor. This is nothing but a
case of violation of the child’s right and as per
scientific reports & child development norms ,
Shared Parenting has been considered to a
Right of the Child for his/her proper
development . In fact , Child Psychologists also
share a view that a single parenting brings
criminal instincts in child , because of the
troubled childhood. In fact based on this fact
alone , the Hon’ble Courts of India in various
matrimonial litigations , while giving complete
sympathetic view towards a child , who is
dragged into litigation purely because of various
cases filled by his/her parents, have asked the
parents to allow visitation/shared parenting in
spite of ongoing litigations .Unfortunately, in the
instant case the petitioner no 2 is not considering
 the life and development of minor Vihaan
Lakhanpal and is keeping him devoid of access
of his father , just with an intent to use the
innocent child , as atool to put pressure on the
respondent & utilizing the Chil-Father
relationship for material gains.

(8) That thus the respondent request this hon’ble

Court to direct the Petitioner No 2 /wife ,to give
custody of Master Vihaan Lakhanpal to the
respondent every weekend from Saturday 3 pm
to Sunday 6 pm so that child could be given his
most important rights of Parenthood of both
Father and Mother
( even in a limited manner ) while proceedings
are happening.

(9) The That the respondent seeks to refer & rely

upon the observations of Hon’ble Mumbai High
Court, wherein it is held that shared parenting is
the right of a child- it is not Husband or Wife’s
right to meet the child , rather it is child’s right to
have access of both parents .
(10) Depriving love & affection of both parents, more
particularly due to alienation of the child by the
custodial parent and or denial of proper access to
the non-custodial parent by the courts has proven
to result in serious consequences caused in the
later part of the child’s life such as drug abuse,
deteriorating educational achievement,
premature sexuality, mental/personality disorder,
chronic depression, suicidal tendency, out of
wed-lock birth, which are often a major force
behind serious crimes

(11) Article 21 of Indian Constitution states that no

person should be deprived of his or her life or

personal liberty except according to procedure

established by the law.

Life of a child is effected when he doesn’t have

access to presence, love and affection of the

father. For a child having father and still not

allowed to grow with father’s care and upbringing

 is akin to forced moral abandonment of the child

from one parent’s care.

(12) That the respondent-father would also like to

emphasize reliance from the judgment of

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is also

annexed her along with this application that in

the case of Vikas Agarwal Vs. Geeti Mathur

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 171/2016 dated 14.02.2017:-

Para 9 - Regretfully, the learned Judge Family

Court has not pondered to find the reason for
this sudden behavioral change in the child. Has
the mother poisoned the mind of the child? An
attempt ought to have been made to unravel the
truth.

Para 10 - The approach in law being, as far as

possible, to ensure the child meeting both
parents and spending quality time with both,
instant case warranted the learned Judge Family
Court to direct the parents to access a child
counsellor and seek a report from the child
counsellor. Help of a trained person who
understands the behavior of a child and the
personality of a child was warranted in the
instant case. Besides, two counsellors being
attached with each family court in Delhi, the
learned Judge ought to have taken the help of
the counsellors as well. Directions should have
been issued to the child to interact with the
counsellors and the opinion of the counsellors
used by the learned Judge.

Para 11 - Since this Court does not have family

counsellors attached, the best course available
is to restore Guardianship Petition No.24/2014 in
the Court of Sh.B.R.Kedia, Principal Judge,
Family Court, Shahdara with a direction that the
learned Judge would identify a child counsellor
within two weeks of receipt of the present order,
(the fee of the counsellor to be borne by the
appellant). The female child shall be taken to the
counsellor by the respondent and should the
counsellor desire a joint meeting with the couple,
the appellant and the respondent would meet the
counsellor.

Para 12 - Report would be obtained from the

counsellor and keeping in view the report the
Guardianship Petition would be decided afresh
within a period of four months of the date of
receipt of the present order.
 Para 13 -Till then the visitation rights granted
under the impugned order to the appellant shall
continue.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

Court may graciously be pleased to :

i) Grant visitation to the respondent so that the minor child

can meet his father on weekly basis ,so as to allow normal
development of an innocent child, which is a pressing need at
this tender age or his development.

ii) To further grant interim custody, to the applicant, for half

the vacations, so that the applicant can take the minor for
holidays, during school vacations.

iii) Pass such further other(s) / relief(s) which this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.

[ Respondent ]
 VERIFICATON

Verified at Gurgaon at ………………….. that the contents of paragraphs from 1 till12

of the above application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing

material has been concealed therefrom.

Respondent-Father