[5/11, 09:07] Adv Naveen Kr Bhardwaj: _*- Matrimonial Law Dispute Visitation rights Matrimonial discord between the parties Respondent directed to vacate the property of appellants father Due to problem in visiting rights matter was referred to the high Court Mediation and Conciliation centre Children shown their reluctance to honour the terms of the settlement with regard to visitation rights agreed upon by their mother and the father Girl showed her utmost reluctance not to have even a glimpse of her father Boy is being of a tender age seemed to be toeing the stand of his sister without having any views of his own Girl cannot be forced into meeting her father because of the sad image that has been etched in her mind Visitation rights to meet the daughter is denied Respondent is directed to comply with the terms of the mutual settlement in so far as the visitation rights of the father to meet boy*_

_*Soumitra Kumar Nahar vs. Parul Nahar MAT APP FC 41/14 [ Kailash Gambhir JJ ]*_

_*[ THE DELHI HIGH COURT ]*_
*_______________________
[5/11, 09:09] Adv Naveen Kr Bhardwaj: _* Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(1b) Divorce petition by husband for Desertion Husband proved the separation and social meeting in which wife agreed to return to nuptial home, but not complete matters discussed in said meeting Held, husband is guilty of concealing facts Desertion not proved Impugned judgment upheld Appeal dismissed*_

_*Yogesh Kumar Pandey vs. Swati Pandey FA .91/14 [ Prashant Kumar JJ ]*_

_*[ THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT ]*_
*________________________

Tags:

#Best Child Custody Case Lawyer, #Top Child Custody Case Lawyer in Rohini Court, #Best Matrimonial Case Lawyer in Rohini Court, #Best Matrimonial Case Lawyer in Tis Hazari Court