JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - These revision petitions brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order dated 1.4.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, vide which the application of Gian Chand and his wife, grand parents of Parth Gupta, has been allowed to the extent that they have been permitted to meet the minor on 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month for two hours, from 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. during all the months excluding May, June and July and between 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. during the aforesaid three months of May, June and July in the court in the presence of learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Smt. Nittu, respondent in Civil Revision No. 3897 of 2011, had been married with Shri Ashwani Gupta, son of the petitioners, Gian Chand Gupta and Smt. Bimla Rani. Said Shri Ashwani Gupta died on 28.3.2006. Parth Gupta was borne to Smt. Nittu from the loins of Shri Ashwani Gupta. Now Smt. Nittu with Parth Gupta is living at her parent home, though claimed by the petitioners to be living with Vinod Goel, with whom, she is claimed to have re-married. 3. Grand parents of Parth Gupta, (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) had brought proceedings under sections 7, 8, 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for the custody of minor Parth Gupta. They had also filed an application for interim directions. The application dated 14.8.2010 for grant of interim custody of the minor has been allowed in the aforesaid terms allowing the grand parents to see the minor on the given days. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the grand parents have brought Civil Revision No. 3897 of 2011 claiming therein that the mother of the child is trying to tutor the child and foster apathy in him towards his grand parents. They have claimed that the minor should rather be permitted to visit his parental home, i.e. H.No. 94, Sector 17, Panchkula so as to enable him to have a sense or pride instead of interim visitation rights. They have also prayed for directing the respondent - Nittu and her alleged husband not to ill-tutor him as also to encourage him to accept gifts from the petitioners. 5. They have also prayed for directing the respondent - Nittu and her alleged husband not to ill-tutor him as also to encourage him to accept gifts from the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, Smt. Nittu, who has denied her remarriage and has also claimed that she had been kicked out of her matrimonial home after the unfortunate death of her husband by her parents in law, has filed Civil Revision No. 5466 of 2011 seeking modification of the order dated 1.4.2011 by restricting the meeting of the grand parents with the child only once in two months in the court complex. 6. I have heard Mr. Raman Mahajan, learned counsel for the grand-parents, petitioners and Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. C.B.Goel and Mr. Sanjay Mittal, learned counsel for the mother, Nittu. I have gone through the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners - grand parents has submitted that a sum of Rs.31.00 lacs had been awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the death of their son Ashwani Gupta and the entire amount has been deposited in the names of Nittu and minor Parth Gupta. According to him, the petitioners have themselves remarried Nittu on 25.11.2008. It is submitted that the meeting of the grand parents with the minor in the court complex is not conducive to the welfare of the child. According to him, the right should be given to the grand parents to take the custody of the child for 2 to 4 hours for taking him to their house and interacting with him. According to him, this would be conducive to the child’s developing bonds with his grand parents. According to him, in the court complex, Smt. Nittu keeps the child clutched and does not allow the child to come to them. Therefore, he has prayed for modification of the order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - Smt. Nittu has vehemently controverted the submission that she has been remarried with some Vinod Goel. According to him, it is figment of imagination of the other side. He has submitted that there is no question of the petitioners solemnizing the marriage of Nittu with Vinod Goyal. According to him, Nittu is staying with her parents at Panchkula. 9. According to him, it is figment of imagination of the other side. He has submitted that there is no question of the petitioners solemnizing the marriage of Nittu with Vinod Goyal. According to him, Nittu is staying with her parents at Panchkula. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the minor Parth Gupta is a school going child and taking him to the court complex every now and then would effect his education. 10. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned senior counsel for Nittu has submitted that no property, which was of Nittu or her husband was given to her and that she was deprived of every thing while turning her out of her matrimonial home. He has, therefore, prayed for modifying the order to make it of meeting the child once in two months. 11. The circumstances of award of Rs.31.00 lakhs as compensation by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the death of Shri Ashwani Gupta or deposit of entire amount in the names of Smt. Nittu and Parth Gupta have no bearing on the decision of these revision petitions. However, the remarriage of Nittu, as claimed by Shri Gian Chand Gupta and his wife, would have a bearing on claim as to custody of the child but the same is yet to be considered by the court below. 12. The question before me is as to the illegality of the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula. What modification is prayed for by Shri Gian Chand Gupta and his wife is that the custody of the child, instead of permission to see him for 2 hours in court premises on alternative Saturdays should have been given for 2-4 hours so that the child could visit his parental home to have a sense of pride. I fail to understand as to what would be the sense of pride felt by the child in visiting his parental home and how that would be conducive to over all growth of the child. In place of being conducive to the child’s welfare, the permission to take the custody of the child for 2 to 4 hours and to take him to his parental home would create further problems. In place of being conducive to the child’s welfare, the permission to take the custody of the child for 2 to 4 hours and to take him to his parental home would create further problems. It would open flood gates for the allegations and counter allegations between the parties because by taking the child to their house, the grand parents would feed him and if on some occasion, the child falls ill, the mother would accuse the grand parents of feeding him improperly. 13. It has been argued that in the court complex, where the court has directed Sh. Gian Chand Gupta and his wife to see the child, he is kept clutched by Smt. Nittu. This fact can be brought to the notice of the court and the court would then pass appropriate orders so that the child could meet his grand parents. Meeting the child at some other place would also not be acceptable to the parties. 14. Taking the case of Smt. Nittu, who has prayed for modification of order in question by reducing the visitation rights to once in two months, I find no merit therein also. The child is in initial stage of his schooling and his visiting the court premises to see his grand parents twice a month for two hours would hardly affect his education. It does not appear to work to the detriment of the child in any way. If the meeting of the grand parents with the child in the court premises is not found in the interest of child or even found to be interfering with the working of the court, then there are several places in the court premises, such as canteen, bar room etc. where this meeting could take place in the presence of counsel for the parties by bringing this fact to the notice of the court. 15. In these circumstance, I find no merit in the revision petitions brought by either of the parties. The same are, therefore, dismissed. ----------------