JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - CM No.5067-CII of 2012 Civil Misc. application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the C.M. application is allowed and delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.1224 of 2012 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the respondent accepts notice. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. 4. The appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon whereby the petition of the respondent-husband for permanent custody of the minor daughter of the parties has been declined. However, certain visitation rights in terms of the conditions as mentioned in the order have been granted to the respondent-husband. 5. The respondent-husband filed a petition seeking custody of the minor daughter of the parties namely Avanti Singh (Khushi) from the appellant-wife. The learned District Judge, Family Court in order to find out the wishes of the child who was 9 years old, interviewed her in his Court room. It was observed by the learned District Judge that the child expressed her desire to live with her mother, but she had also shown love and affection for her father. When she (minor) was questioned as to whom she would like to stay, the child replied that she was comfortable while staying with her mother. But at the same time, she also stated that her father also loved her very much and she would like to go out in the park with her father. In the opinion of the learned District Judge, the minor was able to make intelligent preference and her wishes should be considered by the Court. Accordingly, permanent custody for the minor was declined to the respondent-husband. However, he was granted the visitation rights in the following terms:- 1. The respondent-husband would have the custody of the minor child on every Saturday from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. on next day i.e. Sunday. 2. The respondent-husband would collect the child from the house of the petitioner-wife and would deliver the child at the same place. 3. However, he was granted the visitation rights in the following terms:- 1. The respondent-husband would have the custody of the minor child on every Saturday from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. on next day i.e. Sunday. 2. The respondent-husband would collect the child from the house of the petitioner-wife and would deliver the child at the same place. 3. During summer vacations the respondenthusband shall be entitled to have the custody of minor child for 15 days at a stretch and during winter vacations, the respondent-husband shall be entitled to have the custody of minor child for 7 days as per the convenience of the child. 4. During festivals like Diwali, Holi and birthday of the child, the appellant-wife would allow the respondent-husband to meet the child for a minimum period of two hours at a place as per the convenience of the child. 6. The appellant-wife aggrieved against the grant of visitation rights and the conditions that have been imposed has filed the present appeal. 7 During the course of hearing, it is agreed by learned counsel for the parties that in case on certain Saturdays the child is unable to go with her father for any pressing reasons while going out on a school excursion or near her examinations, the respondent-husband would not seriously insist for her custody on that particular Saturday. This would, however, be limited to school excursions and examinations. 8. With the above modification, the appeal is disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------