CRP 95/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner/husband, by the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 28.02.2008 pas sed by the learned Family Court at Guwahati, whereby and whereunder an order gra nting interim custody of the minor child, aged about 4 years, has been passed in favour of the mother/opposite party. I have heard Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, the learned Sr. counsel for t he petitioner and Mr. SP Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opp osite party. Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the petitioner has su bmitted that on the date fixed, i.e. on 28.02.2008, though the petitioner filed an application seeking adjournment of hearing of the prayer made by the opposite party for custody of the child on the ground that the minor child being ill has been hospitalized, the learned Court below though accepted the contention of th e petitioner made in such application seeking adjournment, passed the impugned o rder directing interim custody of the child in favour of the opposite party/moth er even without rejecting the prayer for adjournment and without hearing the pet itioner. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned Court below having accepte d the grounds taken in the application seeking adjournment, ought not to have pr oceeded to pass the impugned order in absence of the petitioner. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the opposite party, on the othe r hand, has submitted that it is evident from the record that whenever a directi on is issued by the Court to produce the child, the petitioner filed application and seek adjournment on the ground of illness of the child thereby avoiding to produce the child before the Court despite such order passed. According to Mr. Roy, the learned Court below, therefore, had no alternative but to hear the pray er of the mother/opposite party about the interim custody of the child, which wa s allowed keeping in view the illness of the child and also the fact that the mo ther is the best person to whom the custody of minor child, aged about 4 years, is to be given. It appears from the impugned order dated 28.02.2008 that the pre sent petitioner filed an application on the said date seeking adjournment of hea ring on the prayer for custody of the child on the ground that the minor child i s ill and he has been hospitalized. It also appears from the impugned order that the learned Court below has accepted the contention of the petitioner in the ad journment application relating to the illness of the minor child but granted int erim custody of the child in favour of the opposite party/mother directing the p resent petitioner to handover the custody of the child to the opposite party on the ground that the child needs better treatment for his welfare. The learned Co urt below having accepted the ground taken in the application seeking adjournmen t ought to have fixed another date for hearing and ought not to have passed the order in the absence of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 28.02.2008 also does not reveal that the prayer for adjournment has been rejected by the learne d Court below on the ground that whenever there is an order passed for productio n of the child, the petitioner prays for adjournment on the ground of illness of the child. On the other hand, the learned Court below, as noticed above, has a ccepted the contention of the petitioner relating to the illness of the child. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the im pugned order is required interfered with by this Court, which I according do. Th e impugned order dated 28.02.2008 is set aside. At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties have agreed t hat a short date may be fixed for production of the child before the learned Cou rt below and also for hearing the matter of interim custody of the child on that day itself. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties and as Mr. Bha ttacharyya, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ch ild has recovered from illness, I direct the petitioner to produce the child bef ore the learned Family Court on 17th May, 2008, on which date both the petitione r and the opposite party shall remain present before the learned Family Court. The parties would be allowed to produce their respective materials before the le arned Court below on that date. The learned Family Court on that day will take u p the prayer of the present opposite party relating to the interim custody of th e child and decide the same upon hearing the parties and/or their Amicus Curiae. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, Mrs. RB Deb and Mr. B Nand i, the learned counsel are appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the present peti tioner and the opposite party, respectively. The revision petition is accordingly, allowed to the extent indi cated above. No cost.