VAIBHAV KALELE vs MINOR MANAN KALELE

1 / 5

CGHC010263802025 2026:CGHC:46613-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 224 of 2025
Vaibhav Kalele S/o Shri Yashwant Kalele Aged About 41 Years R/o Krishna
Nagar, Near Bamleshwari Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tehsil And District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - Minor Manan Kalele S/o Shri Vaibhav Kalele Aged About 11 Years
Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Prachi Kalele, R/o B-406, Jainam
Heights, Lalpur, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Prachi Kalele W/o Shri Vaibhav Kalele Aged About 37 Years R/o B-
406, Jainam Heights, Lalpur, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate assisted by Mr.
Suraj Patel, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhav Kalele (appellant-in-person),
appeared virtually
For Respondents : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Prachi Kalele (respondent no.2-in-person),
appeared virtually

2 / 5

DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu &
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant
Judgment on Board
03.11.2026
1. By way of this first appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act, appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated
16.05.2025 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in CMC case No. 165 of 2023,
whereby the appellant has filed an application under Section 07 Read
with Section 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1980 which was
rejected (Annexure A-1).
2. The case is taken up for hearing in the first round and after arguing for
sometime learned counsel for the appellant submits that as of now the
respondent no. 1 has attained the age of 14 years therefore, according
to the instructions, appellant is not intending to press this appeal on
merits, however, appellant’s prayer is for granting visitation rights to the
appellant to meet his minor son/respondent no. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents are not
having any objection if appellant comes to the house of the
respondents to meet with respondent no. 1/minor child.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his
instructions is to submit that the grand parents of the respondent no. 1
also want to meet their grand son/respondent no. 1 and therefore, if
this Court passes an order permitting the appellant to meet his child at

3 / 5
any neutral place i.e. public place such as mall, restaurant, garden etc,
where all the persons like father as also the grand parents could meet
respondent no. 1 at a time.
5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the
respective parties, we directed the appellant as also the respondent no.
1 to appear before this Court virtually and accordingly, they both
appeared before this Court virtually.
6. Respondent no. 2 would submit that as the respondent no. 1/minor
child has not met the appellant for a long period of time, therefore,
appellant may be directed to meet respondent no. 1 in her residential
place itself. She also pointed out that one more application is filed by
appellant for taking the custody of second child which is pending before
the concerned Court wherein there was an interim order in favor of the
appellant to meet the said child in residential place of respondent no. 2
and therefore, the appellant can meet both the children at a time in one
place.
7. Appellant-in-person submits that looking to the nature of dispute
developed between him and respondent no. 2 and further that in the
house of respondent no. 2 other family members are also residing
therefore, he will not get sufficient space and good atmosphere to meet
respondent no. 1 in the house freely. He also submits that in the house
of respondent no. 2 grand parents of respondent no. 1 may not feel
comfortable to visit and therefore, it will be appropriate if this Court
permit the appellant to meet respondent no. 1 in any public place.
8. Respondent no. 2 would submits that in the present facts of the case,
unless and until appellant interacts with respondent no. 1 for few

4 / 5
occasions, respondent no. 1 may not be comfortable to meet with the
appellant alone outside the house.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties as also the
appellant and respondent no. 2/minor child.
10. From deliberation it has not come that respondent no. 2 is having any
serious grievance in meeting respondent no. 1 with appellant outside
the house in any public place but for the reason that appellant has not
met respondent no. 1 for a sufficient long period of time, respondent
no. 1 will not be comfortable in meeting him.
11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further
keeping in mind that the child needs love and care of both i.e. father
and mother, meeting of appellant with respondent no. 1 may be helpful
in better up bringing and personality development of respondent no. 1.
Under the Hindu Minority and Guaredianship Act, 1956 it is the interest
and welfare of the child to be the paramount consideration and not the
convenience of the parents.
12. In the above facts of the case, as also keeping in mind the interest and
welfare of the child, respondent no. 1 is residing with her mother and
appellant wants the visitation rights only to meet his child respondent
no. 1. According to the opinion of this Court meeting of appellant with
respondent no. 1 in any public place would be appropriate and
therefore, this appeal is disposed of with permission to appellant to
meet respondent no. 1 on every first Sunday of the month in any public
place like restaurant, garden, mall etc, or any other place as agreed
between the parties between 12 pm to 4 pm. The time schedule and

5 / 5
frequency of visitation will be extendable, subject to the agreement
between the parties.
13. Considering the apprehension shown by respondent no. 2 being
mother, in sudden meeting of respondent no. 1 with his father –
appellant, respondent no. 1 may not feel comfortable, respondent no. 2
is directed to take the respondent no. 1 along with her at the agreed
place of meeting. The place of meeting of the parties shall be pre-
decided telephonically. It is also directed that the grand parents can
also accompany the appellant at the time of meeting respondent no. 1.
14. It is made clear that both appellant and respondent no. 2 shall
maintain peace and harmony during the meeting period. They shall
make all efforts to keep the atmosphere pleasant during that period.
15. Accordingly, the present first appeal stands disposed of in above
terms.
Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant)
Alfiza Judge Judge