Dismissed

Smt. Arti D/O Jitendra W/O Yogendra Singh v. Yogendra Singh S/O Shri Sher Singh

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2025CW/12158/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mother challenged rejection of her visitation rights application concerning two children living with the father at Surat. After interacting with the children in camera, who expressed apprehension of their mother, the Court declined to interfere and directed expeditious decision of the pending divorce and custody proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Arti D/O Jitendra W/O Yogendra Singh… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:35399]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12158/2025

¶4

Smt. Arti D/o Jitendra W/o Yogendra Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Wazirpur District Sawaimadhopur At Present Kailash Nagar, Tehsil Hindaun District Karauli

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Yogendra Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Work Patti, Wazirpur, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) At Present R/o C-603, Suryadarshan Apartment, Near Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat, Gujarat 395009

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. B R Rana
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S K Gupta, sr. adv. with
	Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
	Ms. Surbhi Agrawal

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Judgment

¶12

Proceedings held in camera 03/09/2025

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.07.2025, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of visitation rights was rejected. The relevant facts, as emerge from the record, are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2013. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born in the years 2014 and 2016 respectively.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the year 2020, the respondent-husband instituted a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of the petitioner’s mental

[2025:RJ-JP:35399]

[CW-12158/2025]

(2 of 3)

disorder and cruelty. It is also brought on record that since the year 2019, the respondent has been in custody of the children, who are residing with him and their grandmother at Surat, Gujarat, where they are being looked after. Presently, the respondent is paying a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance.

¶19

It has been contended that the Court below declined to grant visitation rights to the petitioner on the ground that the children expressed fear of their mother. This Court, upon perusal of the order-sheet, was indeed surprised, and in order to verify the same, directed the presence of the husband along with the minor children before the Court. The petitioner-wife, accompanied by her father, was also present.

¶20

This Court has interacted with both the children, who are minors and are studying in Surat. During such interaction, the children expressed that they were apprehensive of their mother on account of her disorder. One of the children further stated that when he was younger, he was subjected to physical ill-treatment by the mother. The respondent-husband submitted that his marriage was solemnized in the year 2013, and only thereafter he came to know about the medical/mental disorder of the petitioner, for which she had been receiving treatment both prior to marriage at Agra and subsequently at Jaipur. He further stated that he continued with the marriage in the interest of the children, however, ultimately he filed a divorce petition in the year 2020. He has also clarified that he does not wish to remarry, but is keen to take care of his children. Presently, he is residing in Surat and is employed in coaching centres.

[2025:RJ-JP:35399]

[CW-12158/2025]

(3 of 3)

On the other hand, the petitioner-wife, appearing in person along with her father and learned counsel, has denied the allegations and has asserted that the respondent is involved in an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law at Wazirpur. It has further been submitted that she had also filed a custody application in the year 2020, but could not secure custody of the children. She continues to receive maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month.

¶25

Having considered the impugned order, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere. However, it is expected from the concerned Court to decide the pending divorce petition as well as the custody application after due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and strictly in accordance with law. It is also expect that no prejudice shall be caused to either party on account of the passing of this order.

¶26

In the interest of justice, it is directed that the concerned Court shall make all endeavours to decide the pending divorce and custody proceedings expeditiously, preferably within an outer limit of one year.

¶27

In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶28

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶29

DEEPAK/s-184

Smt. Arti D/O Jitendra W/O Yogendra Singh v. Yogendra Singh S/O Shri Sher Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Arti D/O Jitendra W/O Yogendra Singh v. Yogendra Singh S/O Shri Sher Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhitar Mal Saini S/O Sadu Ram Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajeet Singh S/O Shri Moolsingh Poonia Vs Dropa W/O Than Singh

Ajit Kumar S/O Shri Sultan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhari Lal Soni S/O Shri Gopal Ram Soni Vs Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Limited

Girdhari Lal Soni S/O Shri Gopal Ram Soni Vs Adarsh Cooperative Bank Limited

Girdhari Lal Soni S/O Shri Gopal Ram Soni Vs Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Limited