IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.792 of 2008 DR. MADAN MOHAN DUBEY Versus SMT.SUDESHNA PRIYADARSHINI&ORS ----------- 8 5.8.2008 Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 30.7.2008, which reads as follows: “After the matter was argued at length by Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, he had clearly indicated that grand father who is petitioner in this case is not at all opposed to grant of guardianship in favour of opposite party, mother and all that the petitioner is concerned is that the grand child who is grand daughter of the petitioner, should be given best education and he as a grand father and his wife being grand mother should be allowed to meet the child at least once in a month whereever grand daughter lives. Responding to the aforementioned submission of Mr. Prasad, Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, applicant in the guardianship matter before the court below submits that the guardian, mother, will have no objection to either of the aforementioned wishes of the grand father of the child. Considering the fact that this 2 approach may lead to amicable settlement of the whole issue relating to guardianship and the applicant may be declared guardian at an early date by bringing to an end to the long strained relationship, this Court would direct both the parties to file an affidavit in support of the submissions recorded above.” Pursuant thereto both the parties have filed their respective affidavits. Having perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner as also the rejoinder affidavit filed by the opposite party no.1, this Court with the consent of the parties, would permit the petitioner to withdraw this civil revision application with the following agreed terms and conditions : - (i) The petitioner and his family members have no objection to the opposite party no.1 being declared and made legal guardian of her daughter and the Court below will proceed ahead and pass necessary order declaring the opposite party no.1 as a guardian of her daughter within a period of one month from today. (ii) The petitioner, the grandfather may deposit any amount for meeting of the educational expenditure or any other expenditure of her 3 granddaughter, (daughter of the opposite party no.1, the legal guardian) in the name of the granddaughter, which will be operated through a bank account by her guardian i.e. her mother, the opposite party no.1. After such donation is given by the petitioner he will not ask for any account of the amount but at the same time, it is expected that the mother, the guardian will spend the amount towards the welfare of the child and for no other purposes. (iii) The mother, the guardian having agreed for a monthly visit of the petitioner and his wife, being the grandfather and grandmother to meet the child in question, this Court would direct that the petitioner and his wife would be allowed to meet the child once in a month, on the first Sunday of each month at the place of the opposite party no.1. In addition to such monthly meeting of the child with her grandparents, this Court would also give them liberty of meeting the child at the place of her mother i.e. the opposite party no.1 on the birthday of the child, new years day and/or also days of important Hindu 4 festivals such as Holi, Diwali etc. (iv) In the event, the opposite party no.1, the mother with the child goes abroad in connection of her studies or settling over there, the same facility of meeting the child will be available to the petitioner and/or his wife, the grandparents. In such a situation, if the opposite party no.1 goes abroad, it will be obligatory on her part to inform the petitioner as with regard to the place where she would reside and the period where she would be available in order to facilitate meeting of the child. The apprehension expressed by the Counsel for the opposite party no.1 that the petitioner may create any impediment in issuance of a passport or visa of the mother i.e. the opposite party no.1 and her child, according to this Court is absolutely misconceived inasmuch as an assurance has been given by the petitioner himself present in the Court that he is ready to sacrifice all his interest for the welfare of the child, and that he will never oppose in the grant of passport/visa. In any event, the opposite party no.1 being the legal guardian of the child, she will definitely have a full and final say in everything for the welfare 5 of the child including the issuance of her visa and passport. Before parting with, this court would also clarity that the court below will proceed to decide the guardianship matter without awaiting giving any further indulgence to the petitioner who is bound by his undertaking recorded in the order of this Court dated 30.8.2006 and 4.1.2007 in Cr. Misc. No. 48006 of 2006 as also in this order. With the aforesaid observations/directions this application is permitted to be withdrawn. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)