JUDGMENT : VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. This First Appeal was filed against the order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad in Execution Petition No. 2 of 2017, wherein in the execution of a mutual consent Divorce Decree dated 12.1.2015 in Family Suit No. 669 of 2014 between Mr. Suryakant Banjrang Lal Goel and Ms. Richa wife of Suryakant Goel at that time in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between these two parties to the matrimonial dispute which is also placed on record. In the said consent terms, visitation/talking rights were given to the biological father Mr. Suryakant Goel for child Ms. Rashi and the relevant part of that Decree as quoted in the impugned order is quoted below for ready reference: “(F) The Petitioner No. 2 is having the custody of Minor daughter, Rashi. As and when Shri Suryakant Goel wish to talk with his daughter Miss Rashi, Shri S.V. Agrawal and Richa Goel will permit the conversation between them and deal with any mode of media/telephonic etc. as well as on visiting at India by Shri Suryakant Goel. He can freely meet his daughter for which Shri Agrawal and Richa Goel will have no objection. It is agreed between the parties that as and when Shri Suryakant Goel wishes to meet his daughter he shall intimate Shri S.V. Agrawal father of Richa S. Goel and he shall arrange for the meeting as required from time to time it is agreed between both the parties that they shall intimate the other party well in advance so as to arrange such visitation meetings. During vacation period if Miss Rashi wants to visit her father same will be allowed by Shri Agrawal and her mother. If Miss Rashi wants to meet her father at Canada then Shri Agrawal and Richa will fully cooperate. (G) Both the petitioners admit of having the freedom to reside independently and having the right to marry any other person.” 2. After the said mutual consent Divorce Decree, Ms. Richa has married one Mr. Lakshman Agrawal, a businessman at Ambaji, Gujarat and is presently living in Ambaji with her new family including the child Ms. Rashi who is now aged about 13 years. 3. After the said mutual consent Divorce Decree, Ms. Richa has married one Mr. Lakshman Agrawal, a businessman at Ambaji, Gujarat and is presently living in Ambaji with her new family including the child Ms. Rashi who is now aged about 13 years. 3. In pursuance of the directions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 07.02.2020 in Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 in First Appeal No. 3019 of 2018, a Report of Dr. Khushnuma Banaji, a Child Psychologist was called. Said Psychologist Dr. Khushnuma Banaji held video counselling session with Ms. Rashi on 03.04.2021 from about 10.43 a.m. to 11.46 a.m. i.e. for little over an hour. The said Report was forwarded in the Court in a sealed cover and we have perused the same. After perusal of the said Report, the same is again to be placed in the sealed cover and kept as a part of record. 4. We also requested Ms. Richa, now married to Mr. Lakshman Agrawal and Ms. Rashi to join this meeting as we could not readily get into contact with Appellant Mr. Suryakant Goel as he lives in Canada through video meeting today and briefly interacted with them. After discussion with learned counsel also and aforesaid interaction with Ms. Richa and Ms. Rashi and both learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties all of them fairly agreed with the proposed order which we indicated to all the parties and learned counsel in the video meeting. This meeting, the other counsels appearing in other cases in our Board were kept in the Waiting Hall. 5. Upon perusal of the Report of Dr. Khushnuma Banaji, Clinical Psychologist, interaction in the Court with Ms. Richa and Ms. Rashi and both the learned counsels, we are of the considered opinion that for the present, the visitation/talking rights given to the biological father of the child Ms. Rashi of Mr. Suryakant Goel need not continue, as it may have adverse psychological effect on the child Ms. Rashi who is of tender age now but she appeared to be having clear and sufficient understanding of the life as she told that she is presently in 9th standard only but want to become Scientist and intends to join NASA. Rashi of Mr. Suryakant Goel need not continue, as it may have adverse psychological effect on the child Ms. Rashi who is of tender age now but she appeared to be having clear and sufficient understanding of the life as she told that she is presently in 9th standard only but want to become Scientist and intends to join NASA. The said girl RASHI is now proceedings towards her adulthood and we, advisedly, do not think it proper to disturb her equilibrium or peace of mind as well as the present family of Ms. Richa who is living with her husband Mr. Lakshman Agrawal at Ambaji happily with other two children of Mr. Lakshman Agrawal from his previous wife. 6. The family overall appears to be in happiness and good financial condition. Therefore, the welfare of child Ms.Rashi can very well be taken care by the present family where she is living. 7. Accordingly, we dispose of this Appeal itself and connected Civil Applications by removing the part of the order of the Family Court below quoted above (Para F) with regard to the visitation/talking rights given to the biological father Mr. Suryakant Goel. The said position will continue and we leave it absolutely to the discretion of the child Ms. Rashi who, after becoming the major viz. achieving the age of 18 years, may take her own voluntary decision about having talking terms or connecting in any other manner with the Appellant Mr. Suryakant Goel, Canada and we may make it clear that no force of whatever nature shall be put on the said child Ms. Rashi in any manner for the said purpose. 8. Except the aforesaid quoted part in Para F of the impugned order of the Family Court, the other terms of the mutual consent Divorce Decree are not being disturbed by us. 9. With these observations, modifications and directions, the First Appeal and other connected Civil Applications are disposed of. No costs.