Disposed

Garima Manohar Seth v. Manohar Seth

Orissa HC29 Jul 2022GUAP/3/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a guardianship appeal. It held that entertaining the appeal on merit was unnecessary. The daughter shall remain in the custody of her mother until she attains majority. The party must mutually work out visitation rights.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the daughter shall remain with her mother till she attains majority; parties to mutually workout visitation.

Garima Manohar Seth Vs Manohar Seth — Child Custody and Guardianship | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

GUAP No. 3 OF 2018

¶3

Garima Manohar Seth and others Appellants

¶4

Mr. B. Mishra, Advocate

-versus-

Manohar Seth

…. Respondent

Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER 29.07.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

The Appellants in this appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the Act’) seek to assail the order dated 22^nd September, 2018 passed by learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Guardian Petition No.07 of 2017.

¶16

It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellants that the Respondent has filed an application under Section 25 of the Act read with Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to be appointed as guardian of the minor children born out of wedlock between the Appellant No.1 and the Respondent. The said application was allowed with the following direction:

¶17

“ O R D E R

¶18

The Guardian petition is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. O.P. No.1 is directed to hand over the custody of their children Soham Seth and Omisha Seth to the custody of the petitioner, within two months from the date of passing of this order where as she be allowed to keep the custody of Mishika Seth with her. The parties are further given visiting rights to mix with their children as and when they desire without

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

disturbing their schooling or routine of the children. Under the above circumstances, the parties are directed to bead their own cost.”

¶22

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellants further submits that out of two children, the son, namely, Soham Seth, has already attained majority and the daughter is seventeen years six months old.

¶23

Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the RespondentHusband does not dispute the factual aspect.

¶24

In view of the above, this Court feels that entertaining the appeal on merit at this stage will not serve any purpose. Thus, without delving into the merit of the order passed under Annexure-1, the GUAP is disposed of with a direction that the daughter shall remain with her mother-Appellant No.1 till she attains majority. The Appellant No.1 shall mutually workout the visitation of the children by the Respondent.

¶25

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶26

¶27

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Garima Manohar Seth v. Manohar Seth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garima Manohar Seth v. Manohar Seth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikunja Bihari Patra Vs R.T.O., Cuttack

Subhra Ranjan Patra Vs R.T.O., Cuttack

Narayan Sethi Vs Ritika Behera

Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Susmita Mishra Vs Dr. Pradeep Kumar Rath

Prasana Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha