This Court dismissed a writ petition seeking custody of a minor child. The Court retained custody with the current guardian but granted the petitioner father fortnightly visitation rights in the afternoon on Sundays, subject to conditions.
Custody denied to petitioner; fortnightly visitation granted to petitioner on Sundays.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPCRL No.94 of 2022
Dr. Satyabrata Pattnaik ..……. Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Mohanty, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .……... Opp. Parties
Mr. J.P. Pattnaik, GA,
(Opp. Party Nos.1,2 and 3)
Mr. S. Sahoo, Adv
(Opp. Party No.4)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
04.08.2022
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. B.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Mr. J.P. Pattnaik, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the Opp. Parties No.1,2 and 3 and Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel
appearing for the Opp. Party No.4.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this Court that a writ of Habeas Corpus be issued, calling upon the Opp. Party No.4 to produce their minor son namely, Shamit Patnaik, before the
Court.
2
4. According to the petitioner, the Opp. Party No.4 had taken away the said child by apply force. The perspective facts have been provided in more details.
5. We have made it clear that we will not disturb the custody of the said child. The custody will remain with the Opp. Party No.4. However, this decision is not of perennial nature. The Civil Court of the competent jurisdiction may decide, in the event of necessity as
regards the custody of the said child.
6. We are conscious of emotional distress of the petitioner as the father. Hence, we direct the Opp. Party No.4 to allow the visitation of the petitioner fortnightly, preferably on Sundays in the afternoon. During the visitation, no such situation should be created that either would deter the right of visitation as is conferred by this Court upon the petitioner, nor generate stress on the child.
7. If anything of that nature happens, this Court will squarely
make the Opp. Party No.4 responsible and in that event, the petitioner will at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court seeking custody of the said child.
8. We hope that since the petitioner and the Opp. Party No.4 are reputed citizens of the society, they will be able to avoid any attrition or situation of annoyance.
3
9. With such observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Rati Ranjan Judge
4
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant custody of the minor son to the petitioner father.
Whether to direct visitation rights for the petitioner father.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Satyabrata Pattnaik
State of Odisha
Shamit Patnaik's Guardian
S. Talapatra
M.S. Sahoo
Rati Ranjan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
