Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 565 (KAR)

S. Purushotham v. B. C. Radha

2015-06-03

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 28-4-2014 passed on LA. No. 10 in M.C. No. 3866 of 2010. 2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship. 3. The petitioner has instituted a petition in M.C. No. 3866 of 2010 seeking dissolution of their marriage. In the pending proceedings, the respondent herein has filed an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking interim custody in respect of their child Master Vishwas Mayur. The Court below has allowed the application in part only to the extent of granting visitation rights in the manner as has been done. The petitioner-husband claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the Court below was not justified in granting visitation rights. It is his case that the child in fact has given a statement with regard to the adulterous life being led by the respondent. Therefore, at this juncture, if the child is allowed to meet the respondent the respondent is likely to influence the child either to retract from the statement made or is likely to cause harm to the child in view of such statement being made by the child against her. It is therefore contended that it would also be in the interest of child that the visitation right is not granted and the order is set aside. 5. In the light of the contention put forth by the learned Counsel, I have perused the order impugned. In fact, the said contention which is advanced was also noticed by the Court below. In addition, the Court below has also referred to the earlier order passed by this Court which was raised as a contention by the petitioner to contend that the interim custody/visitation right is liable to be rejected. 6. A perusal of the order dated 31-5-2013 passed in W.P. No. 19646 of 2013 and connected petition would disclose that this Court in the said proceedings apart from deciding the case therein had also left it open to the respondent herein to make an application for visitation rights. 6. A perusal of the order dated 31-5-2013 passed in W.P. No. 19646 of 2013 and connected petition would disclose that this Court in the said proceedings apart from deciding the case therein had also left it open to the respondent herein to make an application for visitation rights. If in that light, the order is perused, the Court below on taking note of the rival contentions has arrived at the conclusion that the interim custody cannot be granted but, the visitation right has been granted to the limited extent. Even in that regard, the apprehension as put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would not be justified since, the visitation right is provided at the mediation centre at Bangalore and that too, on first and fourth Saturday as per the time fixed therein. Since, the visitation is provided in the mediation centre, the interest of the child would also stand secured. However, if there is any practical difficulty noticed while implementing the order, it is always open for the parties to approach the Family Court in that regard. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned herein. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.