JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous appeal under Section 47 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter 1956 Act') has been filed against the order dated 10-10-2013 passed by Additional District Judge Dholpur dismissing appellant-applicant's (hereinafter 'the applicant') application under Section 6 of the 1956 Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his arguments to the claiming visitation rights for the applicant to visit his minor son Mayank, now 12 years of age. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order dated 10-10-2013 passed by the trial court. 4. The facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent non applicant were married on 2-12-2001. From the marriage a son, Mayank was born on 13-10-2002. It appears that soon thereafter discord set in between the couple, consequent to which the respondent non-applicant wife Latasha (hereinafter 'the non applicant') moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also initiated proceedings inter alia for unlawful demand for property against the applicant husband alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 452 and 323 IPC at Ferozabad (U.P.), where she continued to reside with her parents after the breakdown of her marriage to the applicant. Subsequent to the application for maintenance and criminal case detailed above, the applicant husband moved an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking dissolution of marriage with the non applicant inter alia on the ground of mental cruelty. It appears that ex-parte decree in the petition for divorce was passed on 24-4-2006. Thereafter on an application moved by the non applicant wife under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC the ex-parte decree was set aside and the matter is under consideration before the competent court. 5. In this background the applicant moved an application sometime in the year 2008 under section 6 of the 1956 Act for custody of her minor son Mayank then aged 6 years. The case of the applicant was that the non applicant was a mentally unstable woman, aggressive, prone to physical violence and incapable of looking after herself what after her minor son Mayank. It was stated that the welfare of child in the circumstances mandated that his custody be given to the applicant as he was his father and natural guardian, as on the date of filing application Mayank was 6 years old. It was stated that the welfare of child in the circumstances mandated that his custody be given to the applicant as he was his father and natural guardian, as on the date of filing application Mayank was 6 years old. In support of the application, the applicant aside of himself examined two other witnesses Anoj Kumar Jain AW-2 and Chandrabhan AW-3. 6. The application detailed above was opposed by the non applicant. She denied the allegation of mental instability, and stated that disagreements between the couple were owing to unlawful demand for property by the applicant and his violent behaviour. In support of her case set up in defence, aside of herself she also examined Renu Gupta NAW-2, Urmila Devi NAW-3 and her minor son Mayank NAW-4 as witnesses. 7. The learned trial court on consideration of evidence before it came to the conclusion that the applicant has not been able to prove that the non applicant was suffering from any mental illness or she had an instable mind or she was unable to look after her minor son Mayank. The Court noted from the evidence on record that Mayank was a student in Class-III in a regular school. Conversely the applicant appeared to have no interest in Mayank's welfare, inasmuch as the applicant has not met his son even once since his birth in the year 2002. It was also found from Mayank's own evidence and other circumstances that the minor son had no emotional connect with his father and in case his custody were to be handed over, as sought by the applicant, it would be emotionally traumatic to the young boy and wholly contrary to his welfare. The court in the context aforesaid concluded that for mental and emotional development of the minor Mayank, his continued sole custody with his mother was beneficial and in his welfare. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has not questioned the conclusions of the court below on welfare of the minor son Mayank lying in his continued custody with his mother. He has however submitted that the father should be given visiting rights with his son. I am however not impressed by the contentions as it is apparent from the record that ever since the birth of Mayank on 13-10-2002, the applicant had never visited or tried to visit any manner emotionally connect with him. He has however submitted that the father should be given visiting rights with his son. I am however not impressed by the contentions as it is apparent from the record that ever since the birth of Mayank on 13-10-2002, the applicant had never visited or tried to visit any manner emotionally connect with him. Mayank a minor son is comfortable with his mother and studying in class-III. He appeared as a witness in the court as NAW-4, and stated that he does not want to meet his father and wishes to stay with his mother. There is nothing on record to establish that the sudden introduction of the applicant in the life of Mayank, in spite of the fact that he has not meet him over ten years, would be beneficial for the young boy's development and welfare. For about 12 years now the applicant has been a stranger to his son for reasons substantially attributable to the applicant. It is on record that till 2008, the applicant did not even seek visitation rights to see his minor son or make any effort to show his concern for him.In the circumstances, I find no merit in the miscellaneous appeal. Dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******