Judgment:
P.D. Upasani, J.
1. This custody petition is filed by the petitioner/ father for the custody of his minor female child Husna who is about 5 years old. He has also taken out Interim Petition for access of the child and also permission to have over night access. Respondent No. 1 is the ex-wife of the petitioner who is now divorced and has remarried another person by name Abdul Karim Sarfani and also has a child from him aged about 11/2 years. No reply was filed to this Interim Custody Petition by the respondent. When the matter came up for hearing on 14.8.1996, Advocate for the petitioner-husband Miss Irani was present. However, respondent and her Advocate were absent. Since no reply was filed to the Interim Custody Petition, the Court heard the Advocate for the petitioner, perused the proceedings, also perused the previous orders dated 26.7.1995 passed by Mr. Rane, J. and order dated 18.4.1995 passed by Mr. A.P. Shah, J., also perused the photographs tendered by the petitioner's Advocate which showed that the minor child was very much comfortable and happy in the company of the petitioner and allowed the prayer of the petitioner/father to have overnight access of the child Husna.
2. Subsequently, Advocate Mr. Sirguroh appeared for the respondent and requested that since this order was passed ex parte without hearing the respondent, the matter be heard again on merits. In fact, the respondent took out Interim Petition praying that the order passed by this Court on 14.8.1996 granting overnight access to the petitioner-husband be set aside and that the petitioner be restrained from taking the minor child at night to his place. The petitioner's advocate did not raise any objection about the matter being again heard on merits. Accordingly, the matter was heard on merits in Chamber. Prior to that the Court interviewed the child Husna in Chamber. The Court also interviewed the petitioner-husband and the respondent No. 1, ex-wife of the petitioner in the presence of their Advocates. The child was sent out of Chamber at that time alongwith her grant mother.
3. The contention of Mr. Sirguroh appearing for the respondent is that the child is of a very tender age and therefore the petitioner should not be permitted to have over-night access of the child. It was also contended that the child was afraid of him and was not comfortable in the company of her father.
4. Earlier when the Court had a talk with the child Husna it transpired that the child was tutored to some extent but she admitted inspite of this that she liked her father and that she was not scared of him. In fact, she had nothing to say either for or against about the over-night access. The child really of being tender age was quite immature to understand the nature of things. But one thing was certain that she was not against the idea of meeting her father or residing with him at his residence and to have over-night access.
5. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 1 and the petitioner are no more wife and husband. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was forced to divorce respondent No. 1 though he had no intention to do so on the ground that he was a violin player having modest earnings. Respondent No. 1 was not happy with him as he could not provide various types of luxury to her. This contention is not seriously denied by the respondent. It is an admitted position that accordingly, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were divorced on 16.1.1991. The custody of the minor child Husna remained with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though petitioner was allowed to visit the minor child Husna occasionally. He was also paying Rs. 500/- per month for her maintenance.
6. It is also an admitted position that on 18.6.1993, respondent No. 1, got remarried to one Abdul Karim Sarfani and has got a child from him.
7. I have already seen the album containing photographs of the petitioner and the child Husna. They appeared to be natural photographs which can be of any father and daughter. The child appeared to be absolutely comfortable and happy in her father's company. She was not looking scared at all as is alleged by the respondent.
8. Petitioner has submitted that even though the respondent No. 1 has remarried, petitioner has not re-married just for the sake of his child Husna. He has stated that it is his urge that his daughter should grow into a fine woman and that he should be able to provide all comforts to her. He said that he loved his daughter very much and wanted to have her company. He further said that he was staying with his old mother, brother and 'Bhabhi' and therefore there was no impediment if an over-night access was given. He also pointed out that when the minor child would stay in the company of a total stranger who was the second husband of respondent No. 1 what was wrong if the child was allowed to stay for over-night or as in the company of her natural father.
9. I totally agree with the submissions made by the petitioner and his Advocate Miss Irani. The petitioner is not living alone. He is staying alongwith his old mother, sister-in-law and brother. Therefore, I do not have any apprehension about granting an over-night access of the child Husna even though she is of a tender age. I have seen the photographs along with her grand mother also where she appeared to be completely at ease. It is an admitted fact that respondent No. 1 is re-married. Therefore, the second husband of respondent No. 1 is certainly a stranger to Husna. There is not a word anywhere in the proceedings that he has any affection for Husna nor it has been stated so across the bar or in the Chamber. The petitioner's conduct and urge to have access of the child appears to be absolutely genuine and honest. I, therefore, have no hesitation in confirming my earlier order which .was passed without hearing the respondent's side. Now I have heard at length Mr. Sirguroh and I do not find any substance in his submissions. I, therefore, reject the Interim Petition whereby prayer is made that the earlier order dated 14.8.1996 be set aside. The said order continues and overnight access of the child Husna has to be given to the petitioner-husband. Access also should be given during Diwali, Christmas and Summer Vacations. That can be done by mutual adjustment. Hence, the following order :
The Interim Petition is dismissed. However, the same to be registered and numbered.