JUDGMENT : Govind Mathur, J. This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 8.12.2009 passed by learned Family Judge, Jodhpur in Original Case No.27/2007. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that appellant Smt. Shaheen Naz entered into a wedlock with respondent Shri Mohd. Rafiq on 6.1.2001. She left her in-laws house on 4.6.2001 and since then she is residing separately. In the meantime she gave birth to a girl child viz. Sanna @ Shalu on 29.10.2001. The marriage of the appellant and respondent also came to be annulled in the year 2002. In the year 2007 the respondent applicant preferred an application to have custody of Baby Sanna @ Shalu and that came to be disposed of under the judgment impugned. Learned Judge, Family Court rejected the application being not maintainable but allowed the respondent applicant to visit Baby Sanna @ Shalu on every Sunday between 04:00 to 06:00 PM. 3. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that Baby Sanna @ Shalu is having no emotional attachment with the respondent applicant and she is residing with her mother with all love and affection. The order of visitation shall cause a serious emotional injury to her. According to the appellant the respondent applicant never took care of Baby Sanna @ Shalu and while contesting the application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure he also denied that Baby Sanna @ Shalu is his daughter. 4. Per contra, as per learned counsel for the respondent applicant, the applicant is father of Baby Sanna @ Shalu and he is having natural love and affection for her. He is having a valuable right to visit his daughter and that has been protected by learned Family Court under the judgment impugned. 5. Heard learned counsels. 6. It is well settled that the prime importance to decide as to whether visitation of any person with child is a child's best interest. The child's best interest depends on many aspects including child's gender, age, physical and mental health, life style and other social aspects of each parents ability to the necessities of life including food, clothing, shelter, medical care etc. and also the emotional ties between the child and each parent. 7. In the case in hand, as already stated, the respondent applicant and the appellant are residing separately since 4.6.2001. and also the emotional ties between the child and each parent. 7. In the case in hand, as already stated, the respondent applicant and the appellant are residing separately since 4.6.2001. Their marriage has already been annulled and they have already entered into re-wedlock. Baby Sanna @ Shalu born in the month of October, 2001 and she never stayed in company of the respondent applicant. From last about 14 years she is with the appellant. She is studying in a reputed educational institute and is emotionally attached her step father. It is also pertinent to mention that this Court as well as Family Court made efforts to resolve the dispute between the parties by availing conciliation and mediation, but of no consequence. It is stated and accepted at bar that Baby Sanna @ Shalu refused to meet the respondent and at present she is having no emotional attachment with the respondent. The respondent applicant as well as the appellant both are languishing their life peacefully with their own family. Baby Sanna @ Shalu is happy with her other siblings and other family members. We are of considered opinion that visitation as permitted would cause physically and emotionally harm to Baby Sanna @ Shalu and, therefore, that is not into her best interest. Learned Family Court allowed visitation without examining all these factors. 8. In view of whatever stated above, this appeal deserves acceptance. Accordingly the same is allowed. The order dated 8.12.2009 passed by Family Judge, Jodhpur in Original Case No.27/2007 is set aside.