MANOJ ANSLEM REBEIRO Vs. CANDACE ELIZEBATH REBEIRO
EmailAppeal: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4983 OF 2016
Petitioner: MANOJ ANSLEM REBEIRO
Respondent: CANDACE ELIZEBATH REBEIRO
Judges: KURIAN JOSEPH , ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Date of Judgment: May 09, 2016
JUDGEMENT:
NON- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4983 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3249 OF 2015 ]
MANOJ ANSLEM REBEIRO Appellant(s)
VERSUS
CANDACE ELIZEBATH REBEIRO Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The father of the minor child Marileine Amanda Rebeiro is before us seeking an appropriate order on visitation rights. The High Court, having regard to the earlier background of the case, has declined the visitation rights to the father.
3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we find that whatever be the background of the case, it cannot be so acrimonious so as to deny the right of the father to see his daughter. Therefore, we direct the respondent to produce the child in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on the 3rd Saturday of every month at 11.00 AM and permit the child to interact with the father upto 01.00 PM. It will be open to the grand parents also to be present along with the father.
4. We make it clear that in view of the highly estranged relationship among the parties, the Family Court will see that the child is not taken outside the premises of the Family Court, but at the same time, the father alongwith the grandparents could get some time to interact with the child in the premises of the Family Court.
5. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
…………………..J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
…………………..J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi; May 09, 2016.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4983 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3249 OF 2015 ]
MANOJ ANSLEM REBEIRO Appellant(s)
VERSUS
CANDACE ELIZEBATH REBEIRO Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The father of the minor child Marileine Amanda Rebeiro is before us seeking an appropriate order on visitation rights. The High Court, having regard to the earlier background of the case, has declined the visitation rights to the father.
3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we find that whatever be the background of the case, it cannot be so acrimonious so as to deny the right of the father to see his daughter. Therefore, we direct the respondent to produce the child in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on the 3rd Saturday of every month at 11.00 AM and permit the child to interact with the father upto 01.00 PM. It will be open to the grand parents also to be present along with the father.
4. We make it clear that in view of the highly estranged relationship among the parties, the Family Court will see that the child is not taken outside the premises of the Family Court, but at the same time, the father alongwith the grandparents could get some time to interact with the child in the premises of the Family Court.
5. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
…………………..J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
…………………..J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi; May 09, 2016.
