1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1725 OF 2009 Mr.Umesh Salvi .. Petitioner V/s Smt.Urmila Sawant .. Respondent Ms..Monika Bhagat for the Petitioner. Ms.Deepali Prabhu i/by Ms.Saraswati Jadhav for Respondent. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. (Vacation Judge) DATE: 22ND MAY, 2009 P.C.: . This petition challenges the judgment and order dated September 26, 2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai. By this order, the interim application No.164 of 2008 taken out by the Petitioner – Mr.Umesh Salvi seeking overnight access to his daughter Ms.Suryaja aged about 12 years was rejected. 2. I have heard Ms. Monika Bhagat for the petitioner and Ms.Deepali Prabhu i/by Ms.Saraswati Jadhav for the Respondent. I have also interviewed Ms.Suryaja in my chamber. After going through the record and also the impression gathered by me after interviewing Ms.Suryaja, I am of the opinion that this is not the fit case for invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under 2 Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge of the Family Court while rejecting the application has considered the Interview Report submitted by the Marriage Counsellor Ms.Lohot as also the Report of Observation submitted by Ms.Freny Italia. In paragraph No.4 of the order the learned Judge of the Family Court commented upon the report submitted by the Marriage Counsellor. Report records that Ms.Suryaja has some apprehension against going to her father’s house and she is not willing for overnight access though she communicates with him freely. The Report of Observation submitted by Ms.Freny Italia also shows that Ms.Suryaja is very sensitive and something she heard used to upset her. Report also records that she is not ready for overnight access as she is fearful and anxious and needs to be prepared for it. Ultimately the learned Judge recorded that Ms.Suryaja is of tender age and she is staying with her maternal grandmother since two and half years and if overnight access is granted against her wish, there is every likelihood that she will be emotionally disturbed. 3. Ms.Bhagat, learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Wahidunissa Begum and another V/s.Shaikh Abdulla, (2000) 2 Femi-Juris C.C.141(Bom). She invited my attention to paragraph 9 of the said judgment and contended that in view of this judgment, the petitioner is entitled to the overnight custody of his daughter Suryaja. In that case the custody sought was of a boy and in the present case we are concerned with the overnight custody of a daughter. The facts obtaining in that case and in the present case are not identical. This is more so in the light of the reports referred hereinabove. The said judgment is 3 of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts of the present case. 4. I do not find any error committed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Since the impugned order was passed on September 26, 2008 i.e. more than six months back,I thought it fit to interview the child Ms.Suryaja in my chamber. The interview lasted for more than 15 minutes. During the course of interview I found Ms.Suryaja to be intelligent and matured girl of her age. She has expressed her unwillingness for overnight access. In view of the aforesaid position, in my view no case is made out for interference. Hence the application stands dismissed. (R.G.Ketkar, J.)