Nabanita Sinha Palit v. Dr. Sandip Sinha

25.04.2025 Court No. 36 Sl. No. 08 Cp RVW/321/2024 with CAN/1/2024 in CO/2435/2023 Nabanita Sinha (Palit) Vs.

Dr. Sandip Sinha Mr. Indranath Mukherjee Mr. Anubrata Santra ..... for the applicant.

Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya ......for the respondent.

Re: CAN 1 of 2024 The application being CAN 1 of 2024 is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

It is found from the additional stamp reporter's report dated November 18, 2024, that there has been 245 days delay in filing the review application.

Sufficient cause is shown for the delay in preferring the review application. The delay is condoned.

I admit the review application (RVW 321 of 2024) by allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (CAN 1 of 2024).

Re: RVW 321 of 2024 This is an application for review of an order dated December 6, 2023, passed by this Court in C.O. 2435 of 2023. The review application has been filed by the mother seeking review of the schedule of visitations. The Court had directed as follows:

'(a) The mother is permitted to meet her son once in two months, on the 2nd Sunday between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. at Forum Rangoli Mall at Belur, along with her learned Advocate-on-record. The interaction with the son shall be in the presence of the father and the learned Advocates. (b)The father is also at liberty to be accompanied by his learned Advocate-on-record.

(c)The learned Advocates will coordinate the meeting and ensure that the entire interaction is peaceful. Such interaction will be for an hour.

(d)The parties are directed to cooperate and the personal animosity between the parties should be avoided completely. The visits shall only be restricted to the mother meeting her son in the presence of the father and the learned Advocates, at Forum Rangoli Mall at Belur. (e) The dates of the visits shall be coordinated by the respective learned Advocates of the parties.

This arrangement shall continue till the boy attains majority.'

It is submitted by the mother that, the child is soon going to be an adult and, as such, frequent visitations should be allowed, instead of twice a month.

The order was passed upon hearing all the parties and upon interviewing the son. Today, the son is also present in Court and submits that he had gone to visit his mother at least on five occasions, but she was unpleasant.

The mother denies and submits that the son was accompanied by the father four times.

This Court does not deem it necessary to review the order as the son has just taken his Class XII board examination and is going to appear in further competitive examinations. Any further direction will hamper his daily study routine.

Needless to mention that the order which has been passed, shall be complied with. The other issues raised by the mother with regard to non-payment of alimony etc. are not to be adjudicated before this Court.

The mother is at liberty to take appropriate steps, as permissible in law.

The review application is disposed of.

(Shampa Sarkar, J. )