1 wp394-11.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPLICATION JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 394 of 2011 Mohammed Afzal Islam Ansari .. Petitioner v/s. Shaheen Mohammed Afzal Ansari ..Respondent Mr.Hakim Salim for the petitioner Ms. Suvarna Telgote for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 23rd March, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service. By consent petition is taken up by hearing. 3. M.J.Petition No.A-1754 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner against the respondent in the Family Court at Bandra. In the said petition, the petitioner had filed an application for interim custody being interim application No.205 of 2009 at Exhibit 6. The application has been decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court by Order dated 2 wp394-11.sxw 22.11.2010. By the said order, application for interim custody has been rejected. The petitioner has been granted access to the son on every first Saturday between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. in the Children Complex of the Family Court, Mumbai. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.11.2010 as regards interim custody as well as access. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on the question of interim custody. As of today the child is hardly of 1 year 7 months old. Learned Judge of the Family Court has declined interim custody on the ground that the child is of tender age. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent and the child are not staying in good environment. He claims that he will be able to take care of the child in better manner. In my view, the learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly taken into consideration tender age of the child and has rightly rejected the interim custody. No interference by this Court is required in the said order. 5. As regards access, learned Judge of the Family Court has granted access once in a month. After hearing learned Counsel on both sides, 3 wp394-11.sxw I am inclined to observe that the access granted once in a month is inadequate and access can be granted on one more occasion i.e. on 3rd Saturday of every month between 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. in the Children Complex of the Family Court. 6. Looking to the age of the child, it is necessary that the child should be brought in a rickshaw or taxi and for that the respondent can’t be made to spend. It will be necessary that the petitioner will have to pay for conveyance from the residence of the respondent to the Family Court at Bandra and back, so that the child can be carried to the court and taken home comfortably. Noting that the respondent resides at Jogeshwari and the situation of the family Court at Bandra, per trip the respondent should get atleast Rs.200/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner showed willingness to pay some monies in advance. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid to the respondent sum of Rs. 400/- for two trips to be conducted by the respondent in future. Hereafter also the petitioner will have to pay to the respondent per visit of the child to the Family Court Rs.200/- for transport. In view of the aforesaid discussion, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. 4 wp394-11.sxw ORDER i) Order dated 22.11.2010, so far as the rejection of interim custody is confirmed. ii) The petitioner shall have access on one more day i.e. the respondent shall provide to petitioner the access of the son on first and third Saturday of every month between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. in the Children Complex of the Family Court. The petitioner shall pay to the respondent, per trip a sum of Rs.200/- for carrying the child to the Family Court in rickshaw or taxi. Payment of Rs.200/- per trip is mandatory and it is hoped that the petitioner shall pay the said amount. iii) As of today the petitioner has paid Rs.400/- directly in the court to the respondent for two trips to be conducted in the Family Court. iv) Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]