abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2008 Yogesh Bhagwandas Mehta .. Applicant V/s Uday Hiralal Joshi .. Respondent Mrs.Manjula Rao for the applicant. Mr.G.N. Salunke i/b Mr.Sharad Suryawanshi for the respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The applicant is the father of the child "Drishti" and the respondent is her maternal uncle (mother’s brother). 3. Drishti is a special child. The respondent - 2 - claimed her custody which was rejected by the Family Court and, therefore, he has filed Family Court Appeal No.12 of 2008 which is pending. By our order dated 24th July 2008, we had made certain arrangement so that both the parties will have joint custody of and access to Drishti. The applicant father prays to continue the said order until the pending appeal is decided by us. 4. The respondent has filed affidavit in reply and has opposed this application mainly on the ground that on three different occasions, the applicant father flouted the order passed by us on 24th July 2008. It is alleged that on 30th August 2008 and 15th November 2008 the father could not reach Drishti to the house of the respondent by 9.00 a.m. so as to attend the speech therapy sessions and because of the delay, the teacher did not wait and the child lost the speech therapy sessions. The respondent has also cited one more instance of the same kind and that is of 15th August 2008 when as per him, the father could not have claimed access but he insisted on the same. 5. As noted earlier, the applicant is the natural father of the child and there is no reason as to why he should be denied the benefit of our order dated 24th July 2008 during the pendency of the appeal filed by the respondent. We have also been informed by Mrs.Rao, the - 3 - learned counsel for the applicant father, that the child requires replacement of the hearing aid instrument and the father is willing to purchase the same. 6. We are satisfied that in the interest of Drishti, the order passed by us on 24th July 2008 is required to be continued till Family Court Appeal No.12 of 2008 is heard and decided by this Court. She also should have the benefit of the latest instruments depending upon the doctor’s advice so that she comes to normal level as quickly as possible in terms of her speech as wel as hearing capacity. 7. Hence, this application is allowed partly and it is directed that our order dated 24th July 2008 shall continue to operate until further orders. 8. Family Court Appeal No.12 of 2008 is directed to be listed for final hearing on 21st March 2009. 9. The applicant father is also permitted to replace the existing hearing aid instrument at his cost and subject to the opinion of the doctor. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)