Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 778 (AP)

NALLAMALA PADMAJA v. NALLAMALA RAMESH

2008-09-16

P.S.NARAYANA

body2008
ORDER: 1. Heard Ms.W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Mr.P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent. 2. The civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 18.1.2007, in I.A.No.1928 of 2006 in O.P.No.1146 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Khammam. The revision petitioner filed the said application being the mother of the minor female child by name Pranavi for temporary custody under Section 12(1) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam, after referring the respective stands taken by the parties having formulated the point for consideration at para 6 and further recording certain reasons after referring to certain decisions which had been relied upon, came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the application filed by the mother of the ward for interim custody of her daughter and ultimately dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP had been preferred. 3. Ms.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor while giving custody to be taken into consideration. The learned counsel also pointed out to certain of the findings which had been recorded while deciding the matter and would maintain that at this age keeping the minor female child in a residential school may not be just and proper. The learned counsel also pointed out to certain orders, which had been made in this regard and ultimately would make a request that in the facts and circumstances of the case suitable directions to be given to safeguard the interests of the minor female child. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate her submissions. 4. On the contrary, Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent would maintain that it is no doubt true that the child is a female child and the counsel also would maintain that it is not as though the female child is of very very tender age, but sufficiently grown up of age of 12 years at present. 4. On the contrary, Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent would maintain that it is no doubt true that the child is a female child and the counsel also would maintain that it is not as though the female child is of very very tender age, but sufficiently grown up of age of 12 years at present. The learned counsel also would maintain that in fact recently the learned Magistrate interviewed the minor female child and recorded reason to the effect that she was not willing to go with the mother, when that being so, when the respondent-father is looking after the welfare of the child having admitted her into a decent school, giving good education, it cannot be said that the respondent-father is not looking after the welfare of the child, in fact the father is the natural guardian, may be after the father the mother may be the natural guardian. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would maintain inasmuch as the O.P. is of the year 2006 instead of deciding this application at this stage, it would be just and proper to issue suitable directions for disposal of the O.P. itself at an early date. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the record and the order impugned in the present civil revision petition. 6. The petitioner, wife of the respondent, filed I.A.No.1928 of 2006 in O.P.No.1146 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Khammam, for temporary custody of the female child by name Pranavi. It is stated that the said Pranavi is of 12 years age at present. It is stated by the revision petitioner that the parents and sister-in-law of the respondent necked away the petitioner and her minor son and demand additional dowry of Rs.12,00,000/- and they had retained the minor daughter threatening that they would not give the child till the additional dowry is paid. The petitioner secured private employment and she is looking after the welfare of the minor son. She filed a report under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC in Crime No.73 of 2006, the respondent, his sister and his parents remanded to judicial custody on 10.10.2006. The said Pranavi who was in the hands of the respondent has stated to the learned Magistrate that the petitioner may beat her. She filed a report under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC in Crime No.73 of 2006, the respondent, his sister and his parents remanded to judicial custody on 10.10.2006. The said Pranavi who was in the hands of the respondent has stated to the learned Magistrate that the petitioner may beat her. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate delivered the said ward to the custody of the Principal, Gowtham Concept School at Gudivada wherein she was studying V standard vide orders dated 19.10.2006 in Crl.M.P.No.993 of 2006 in Cr.No.73 of 2006. It is stated at the relevant point of time, she was staying in the said school and at present she is studying in Triveni Talent School, a residential school at Kothagudem. It is also stated that the respondent married the petitioner on 9.11.1995. They lead happy married life for five years. They begot Pranavi on 4.1.1997 and Nowhith on 20.9.2000. The respondent previously used to work in M/s.Sangfroid Remedies Ltd., at Kottur, Mahaboobnagar District. Later he left the said job and went to Muscat and returned in June, 2002. He did not take care of the petitioner and her children while he was at Muscat. Therefore for sometime she along with her children stayed in the house of her mother and for sometime she stayed in the house of parents of respondent. Therefore her parent-in-law, their two daughters, husband of her elder sister-in-law used to harass her mentally, later the respondent returned to India. He started ill-treating her. He demanded Rs.12,00,000/- for starting a business. He necked out her and her son in August, 2003. She joined her parents at Nellipaka. Later she resided at her brother's house at Hyderabad. Respondent filed M.O.P.No.99 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights, but he took back her in the month of April, 2005. Petitioner joined him since she was unaware of the pendency of M.O.P.No.99 of 2003. The respondent later demanded Rs.12,00,000/-. He used to manhandle the petitioner. He used to speak in low language. He is having vices such as drinking and extra marital relationships. She got employment. She is capable of maintaining her children. Respondent is unemployed. He cannot see the welfare of the minor daughter. Without taking personal care, he admitted his daughter in Gowtham Concept School at Gudiwada. The ward is in need of her mother's care since she is at the age of attaining puberty. 7. She got employment. She is capable of maintaining her children. Respondent is unemployed. He cannot see the welfare of the minor daughter. Without taking personal care, he admitted his daughter in Gowtham Concept School at Gudiwada. The ward is in need of her mother's care since she is at the age of attaining puberty. 7. The respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is stated that the respondent or his relatives never demanded any dowry. They never ill-treated the petitioner. Petitioner is of adamant nature. She is suffering neurological problems. Respondent spent huge amounts for her neurological problems. But she is not using the medicines properly. On account of neurology problems she used to ill- treat her daughter. She never took any proper care for her daughter. She never exhibited any love and affection for her daughter. For the bright future of his daughter, the respondent admitted her in Gowtham Concept School, Gudiwada in V class for the year 2005-2006 by spending huge amounts. Petitioner presented a false report in Crime No.73 of 2006 when the learned Magistrate, Bhadrachalam questioned the ward when his parents and this respondent were remanded to judicial custody. The learned Magistrate delivered the girl to the custody of school after interviewing the ward. As per the orders of the court, the respondent is visiting the school and providing her all amenities and he is looking after the welfare of the ward. By suppressing all these facts, petitioner filed the petition for temporary custody. If the petitioner is at clean hands, she would have filed an application before the court for production of minor girl before the court for interview. Since she is aware that the ward dislikes her, she did not move the court for production of the baby. The certified copy of the order of the learned Magistrate and the medical record of the petitioner are filed. 8. Since she is aware that the ward dislikes her, she did not move the court for production of the baby. The certified copy of the order of the learned Magistrate and the medical record of the petitioner are filed. 8. The I Additional District Judge, Khammam had taken note of the fact that the father might have spent considerable amount in seeing that the daughter will educate in a good school and also had further taken note of the fact of the learned Magistrate in fact interviewed the girl and found that she is not willing to go along with the mother and further recorded certain reasons and ultimately negatived the relief of interim custody of the ward. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in C.C.No.657 of 2007 this Court for willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 23.4.2007 of this Court, respondent is sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for two weeks. It appears that in CRPMP No.2276 of 2007 in the present CRP the following order was made by this Court: "Therefore, with a direction to the Principal of the Gowtham Concept School, Gudivada, to deliver custody of the minor girl N.Pranavi (Admission No.3999) to the petitioner for her i.e., the minor to be in custody of the petitioner from 25.4.2007 to 25.5.2007, and with a direction to the petitioner to handover custody of the minor girl to the respondent on 25.5.2007 and with a further direction to the respondent to readmit the minor Pranavi into school on 17.6.2007, the petition is disposed of. No costs." 10. It is stated that instead of readmitting the minor girl in Gowtham Concept School, she was admitted in a different school. It is no doubt stated that this was done in accordance with the wishes of the minor girl. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent herein filed C.A.No.3 of 2008 and the order dated 9.7.2008 in C.C.No.657 of 2007 had been suspended by order dated 22.7.2008. 11. The said I.A.No.1928 of 2006 in O.P.No.1146 of 2006 is filed by the revision petitioner-mother praying for granting of interim custody of the minor female child. While granting custody of a minor the paramount consideration to be taken into consideration is the welfare of the minor child. 11. The said I.A.No.1928 of 2006 in O.P.No.1146 of 2006 is filed by the revision petitioner-mother praying for granting of interim custody of the minor female child. While granting custody of a minor the paramount consideration to be taken into consideration is the welfare of the minor child. The twin reasons which had been recorded by the learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam is that the respondent-father has been spending considerable amount in seeing that the child is properly educated and the other reason recorded is that when recently the learned Magistrate interviewed the girl the learned Magistrate found that she was not willing to join her mother and in view of the same there is no need to interview the girl further while deciding the present application. 12. In Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India1 the Apex Court at para 44 observed as under: "The expression 'natural guardian' has been defined in Section 4(c) as noticed above to mean any of the guardians as mentioned in Section 6 of the Act of 1956. This section refers to three classes of guardians, viz., father, mother and in the case of a married girl, the husband. The father and mother, therefore, are natural guardians in terms of the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 4(c). Incidentally, it is to be noted that in the matter of interpretation of a statute, the same meaning ought to be attributed to the same word used by the statute as per the definition section. In the event, the word "guardian" in the definition section means and implies both the parents, the same meaning ought to be attributed to the word appearing in Section 6(a) and in that perspective, the mother's right to act as the guardian does not stand obliterated during the lifetime of the father and to read the same on the statute otherwise would tantamount to a violent departure from the legislative intent. Section 6(a) itself recognizes that both the father and the mother ought to be treated as natural guardians and the expression "after" therefore shall have to be read and interpreted in a manner so as not to defeat the true intent of the legislature". 13. In Lekha v. P.Anil Kumar2 the Apex Court at paras 17 and 18 observed as under: "According to the Hindu Law, the natural guardian of a minor child is the father. 13. In Lekha v. P.Anil Kumar2 the Apex Court at paras 17 and 18 observed as under: "According to the Hindu Law, the natural guardian of a minor child is the father. In the next place, the guardian of a child is the mother. The very principle of guardianship is that there is a presumption that parents will be able to exercise good care in the welfare of their children if they do not happen to be unsuitable as guardians. The law permits a person to have the custody of his minor child. The father ought to be the guardian of the person and property of the minor under ordinary circumstances. The fact that the mother has married again after the divorce of her first husband is no ground for depriving the mother of her parental right of custody. In cases like the present one, the mother may have shortcomings but that does not imply that she is not deserving of the solace and custody of her child. If the Court forms the impression that the mother is a normal and independent young woman and show no indication of imbalance of mind in her, then in the end the custody of the minor child should not be refused to her or else we would be really assenting to the proposition that a second marriage involving a mother per se will operate adversely to a claim of a mother for the custody of her minor child. We are fortified in this view by the authority of the Madras High Court in Sura Reddy v. Chenna Reddy (AIR 1950 Madras 306) where Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Syed, JJ have clearly laid down that the father ought to be a guardian of the person and property of the minor under ordinary circumstances and that fact a Hindu father has married a second wife is no ground whatever for depriving him of his parental right of custody." 14. Reliance was also placed in Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde3 while dealing with child custody and also visitation rights the Apex Court after referring to several decisions observed at paras 34 and 35 as under: "On the facts of his case, we are not inclined to grant temporary custody to the respondent to take the child from India. Reliance was also placed in Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde3 while dealing with child custody and also visitation rights the Apex Court after referring to several decisions observed at paras 34 and 35 as under: "On the facts of his case, we are not inclined to grant temporary custody to the respondent to take the child from India. That would affect the child's studies and further there is an ex parte order of the US Court giving permanent custody to the father and if that order is executed by the respondent, there is danger of the boy not returning to India thus frustrating any order that we are asked to pass giving temporary custody to the respondent. As to visitation rights, of course, the respondent can be given, as long as he wants to visit the child in India, at Pune. So far as this aspect is concerned, the point has not been argued before us elaborately but, in case the respondent is coming of India, he could, in advance of at least 4 weeks, intimate in writing to his counsel either at Bombay/Delhi with copy to the address of the appellant /child and if that is done, the appellant shall positively respond in writing. We grant visitation rights for three hours per day twice a week (for weeks) at a time and venue at Pune to be agreed by counsel and the appellant, and this shall be at a place at Pune where the counsel or their representatives are necessarily present at or near the venue. The respondent shall not be entitled to take the child out from the said venue. The appellant shall take all such steps to comply with the above visitation rights of the respondent. It will also be open to the parties to move this Court for any other directions in regard to these visitation rights." 15. The Division Bench of this Court in M.Venkata Mani Kanthu and another v. Nil4 while dealing with the appointment as guardian of minor children observed at paras 15 and 18 observed as under: "Section 8 of the HMG Act, which deals with the powers of natural guardian, postulates that natural guardian of a Hindu minor, will primarily be the 'father' of the minor, subject to the limitations contained in Section 6 of the HMG Act. If the natural guardian of the minor is the father, subject to the limitations contained in Section 6 of the HMG Act, the father of the minor shall obtain the previous permission of the Court in case the property of the minor is to be mortgaged, transferred, gifted or leased out etc. In the instant case, the first thing that is to be noticed is that the admitted ages of the minors are - 15 years (girl) and 17 years (boy). In such an event, it is only the father who has to be treated as the natural guardian of the minors for the purpose of filing an application under Section 7 of the GW Act, but not the mother of the minors." 16. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Manchala Hushikesh v. Terala Pradeep Kumar and others wherein the Division Bench observed as paras 22 and 32 as under: "From the above, it is clear that the father is the guardian of the minor until he is found unfit to be the guardian of he minor. The welfare of the minor is paramount consideration while ordering their custody. In view of the Section 25 of the Act, the onus is on the person who opposes the application by a guardian for the custody of a ward under this section to make out that the welfare of the wards be better served by its being kept out of the custody of its guardian and retained in the custody of the person against whom the application is made. This onus is particularly heavy when the guardian is the father of the child. Likewise, under Section 19 the burden of proof to deny the natural father the custody of his child would be very heavy to establish his unfitness and the Court will require very strong reasons for interference with the father's right to custody. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is in this background of the legal position we have to analyse the evidence adduced, both oral as well as documentary, to prove the unfitness or otherwise of the father and also see whether the welfare of the child would be better served in the hands of the father or the respondents. The another reason given by the trial Court is that the evidence brought on record clearly shows that the appellant did not evince any interest in the minor children and it is only when the minor wards are showing proficiency in the dancing and singing, the petitioner came up with this application belatedly. The trial Court has not recorded any specific finding about the unfitness of the natural father as required under Section 19 of the Act, and in the absence of any evidence regarding the unfitness of the father, the trial Court was not justified in denying the custody to the petitioner. The petitioner-natural father has invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each in favour of the wards, claiming no right or interest in the said money. Added to that, there appears to be no evidence on record that the petitioner remarried again. A careful perusal of the evidence on record also does not give an impression that the interests of the minors would not be served if they are given custody to the petitioner. In the circumstances stated above, in our view, the Court below erred in rejecting the petition filed by the natural father claiming custody of the children from the maternal uncle of the wards. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to seek the custody of the minor children." 17. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Dr.Mrs.Veena Kapoor v. Varinder Kumar Kapoor6 and also Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka. In V.V.Narasaiah v. C.P.Raju8 the Division Bench of this Court at paras 6 and 11 observed as under: "The learned counsel for the appellant contends that even though the father is not unfit to be the guardian of the minor girl, the paramount consideration for handing over the custody of the minor is the welfare of the minor. The father no doubt has a legal right but that right is always subservient to the welfare of the minor. If the Court finds that it will not be in the interest of the minor or conducive to its welfare to entrust it to the custody of the father, the mere fact that the father has a legal right to the guardianship of the minor, is of no consequence. If the Court finds that it will not be in the interest of the minor or conducive to its welfare to entrust it to the custody of the father, the mere fact that the father has a legal right to the guardianship of the minor, is of no consequence. It is contended that admittedly the minor girl has been living with the grand mother ever since the death of her mother in the month of May 1962. At the time when the application was filed i.e., in the year 1964, two years had passed and now when we are considering the matter, more than 7 years have elapsed that the child has been continuously living with the grandmother. The grandmother and the child were both present in the Court throughout the hearing of the appeal and we saw the obvious attachment of the child to her grandmother. It is quite clear that as the child is with the grandmother right from her infancy, she does not know her father. It is also an admitted fact that the father was married in about May, 1963 and that at the time when the matter was decided by the lower court in the year 1968 he had two children by his third wife. It is also in evidence that the respondent has a daughter by his first wife who is living all along with his brother's wife and there was no attempt by the respondent to get the custody of that child. There are no allegations made against the father that he is not fit to be the guardian as he has no means to look after the welfare of the child. The main point that is advanced for consideration is that after the custody of the minor girl is handed over to the father, she has to live with the stepmother and her stepbrother and sister. It is a matter of common knowledge that the child will not get the same care and affection from the stepmother as she would have from her mother's mother, the appellant. It is a matter of common knowledge that the child will not get the same care and affection from the stepmother as she would have from her mother's mother, the appellant. No doubt the mere fat that the father has married again, is no ground to disqualify him from the guardianship of the minor girl; but that is a factor which has to be taken into consideration while ascertaining whether it will be in the interest of the minor that the custody should be handed over to the father. Distinction will also have to be drawn between the custody of a male child and the custody of a female child. Even in tender years, it is a matter of common knowledge that male child spends most of his time outside the house and comes into contact with the stepmother only for a limited time. That is not the case with a female child. In the case of female child for every want of hers, she has to look to her stepmother and there are certain wants of hers which cannot be administered by the father at all. It was argued that the law has not made any distinction between the custody of male child and the custody of female child. But the law has laid down that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and in determining the welfare of the child, sex of the child will necessarily have to be taken into consideration. The position has become clearer by the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Hindu Minority Act). Section 2 of this Act states that the provisions of the Hindu Minority Act shall be in addition to and not save as expressly provided in derogation of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Sections of the Hindu Minority Act will have to be read as in addition to the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Section 13 of the Hindu Minority Act reads: "(1) In the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor should be the paramount consideration". Sections of the Hindu Minority Act will have to be read as in addition to the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Section 13 of the Hindu Minority Act reads: "(1) In the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor should be the paramount consideration". This provision clearly shows that even in spite of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, while appointing or declaring a guardian the Court, in case of Hindus will have to take into consideration the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Minority Act. The paramount consideration for appointment or declaration of guardian is the welfare of the minor. The position of law even prior to the enactment of Section 13 of the Hindu Minority Act was that the father's right to the custody of his minor child was not absolute and was subservient to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor. That position has been made very clear by the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Minority Act. We are supported in this observation of ours by a decision of the Punjab High Court in Rattan Amol Singh v. Kamaljit Kaur, AIR 1961 Punj. 51. The learned Judges held: "Reading the relevant sections of these statutes (Hindu Minority Act and Guardians and Wards Act) together the benefit of the minor is the dominant and paramount consideration and if the circumstances so warrant the father's prayer under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act can legitimately be disallowed in the better interest of the minor's welfare. The father's right to the custody of his minor child is not absolute; nor is it indefeasible in law; it is circumscribed by the consideration of the beneficial welfare of the minor. This was the position even before the enactment of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act; but by enacting this provision the Parliament has unambiguously indicated in the clearest language, by providing in the statute that even in the appointment and declaration of the guardian of a minor the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor concerned". This was the position even before the enactment of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act; but by enacting this provision the Parliament has unambiguously indicated in the clearest language, by providing in the statute that even in the appointment and declaration of the guardian of a minor the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor concerned". That being the position in law, what we have to consider is whether it will be for the welfare of the minor that she is removed from the custody of the grandmother and handed over to the custody of the father where she will have to live with her stepmother. Certain decisions were relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to show that the very fact that there is a stepmother is a sufficient ground to deny the father the custody of the child. Those decisions are: Muthuverappa Chetti v. Ponnuswmy Chetti (1912) 13 Ind Cas 16 (Mad) and AIR 1935 Mad 63. In both these decisions the question for consideration was the welfare of a minor girl. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Gummalapudi Kalidas v. Attaluri Subbamma (1884) ILR 7 Mad 29; AIR 1916 Mad 605 and AIR 1929 Mad 81 , where it was held that the mere existence of step mother is not sufficient to hold that it will not be for the welfare of the minor that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father. It has to be noted that all the Cases Referredby the learned counsel for the respondent relate to the custody of the male child". 18. The Division Bench in fact had referred to Rattan Amol Singh v. Kamaljit Kaur (1961) AIR 1961 Punj 51; Soora Reddi v. Chenna Reddi (1950) AIR 1950 Mad 306 ; Ponniah Asari v. Suppiah Asari (1935) AIR 1935 Mad 363 ; Atchayya v. Kosaraju Narhari (1929) AIR 1929 Mad 81 ; Audiappa Pillai v. Nallendran Pillai (1916) AIR 1916 Mad 605; Muthuveerappa Chetti v. Ponnuswami Chetti (1912) 22 Mad L.J. 68 and Gummalapudi Kalidas v. Attaluri Subbamma (1884) ILR 7 Mad. 29. 19. 29. 19. It is no doubt true that the respondent-husband the father of minor child had contravened the order made by this Court and he is found guilty of contempt of court and no doubt it is stated in the interest of the welfare of the minor girl and in accordance with the wishes of the minor child only this had been done. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the said aspect since it is stated C.A.No.3 of 2008 is said to be pending. The O.P. itself is of the year 2006. It is stated that the main relief prayed for in the O.P. itself is for the custody of the minor female child by name Pranavi by the petitioner mother. It is needless to say while deciding the interlocutory application praying for temporary custody on the strength of the respective stands taken by the parties and on the material available on record certain findings would be recorded for the purpose of disposing of the interlocutory application. It is needless to say when parties adduced evidence, the learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam might have to decide the main O.P. in the light of the evidence, which may be adduced by the parties, not being influenced by any of the findings recorded while deciding the interlocutory application. However, in the light of the convincing reasons which had been recorded by the learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam, especially the twin reasons which had been referred to above that the respondent, the father of the minor girl is looking after the minor girl by spending considerable amount in seeing that the girl is well educated and also the other reasons recorded that the minor girl expressed her unwillingness to go along with the mother before the learned Magistrate, this Court as a revisional court cannot find fault with the order made by the learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam. However, it is stated that under the peculiar circumstances when such view was expressed by the minor child at the relevant point of time before the learned Magistrate, it is needless to say that the learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam is at liberty to interview the minor female child by name Pranavi in the event of the learned I Additional District Judge, Khammam, requiring to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the minor female child is being retained by the respondent father only with a view to adopt blackmailing tactics to extract some money from the revision petitioner-mother. This is only an assertion and this Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to this aspect. 20. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the civil revision petition with the following directions: 1. Let the revision petitioner-mother of the minor female child Pranavi be permitted to visit the said minor on every Sunday with the permission of the Head of the Institution of Triveni Talent School, Kothagudem. If holidays intervene, let the revision petitioner visit the minor female child Pranavi on any convenient day after obtaining prior permission from the Head of the Institution at the convenience of both the minor child and the mother as per the wishes of the minor child. Let the O.P.No.1146 of 2006 itself be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of as indicated above. No order as to costs.