JUDGMENT : P. SREE SUDHA, J. 1. This Family Court Appeal is filed against the Order dated 04.08.2011 in O.P. No. 1403 of 2009 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Hyderabad. 2. One Mohd. Ahmed Muzaffar filed O.P. No. 1403 of 2009, against his wife Syeda Zaheerunnisa @ Darakshaan under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, seeking to permit him to visit and see the minor child namely M.A. Jabbar @ Osma Waleed, who attains the age of seven (7) years. Petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 on his behalf. During the course of trial Respondent set ex-parte. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of both side, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner therein preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner mainly contended that the settlement deed was not scrutinized in its correct prospective. He further contended that it is a settled law that father is equally entitled to have visitation rights of his minor child. Respondent has not lead any evidence to prove that visitation rights would cause any harm to the minor child, but the trial Court erred in dismissing this application and thus requested the Court to set aside the Order passed by the trial Court. 4. As per the proceedings dated 08.11.2023, notice sent to the respondent was returned ‘un-claimed’. It is relevant to note that un-claimed amounts to service of notice. As there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner on 22.11.2023, and reserved for judgment. 5. The parties herein are referred as petitioner-husband and respondent-wife as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 6. O.P. No. 1403 of 2009 was filed by petitioner/husband seeking visitation rights on 11.12.2009, stating that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent/wife was performed on 03.08.2007, and out of their wedlock a child was born to them on 06.05.2008, namely Mohd. Abdul Jabbar, but respondent left the house of petitioner on 01.04.2008, and filed a criminal case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under Dowry Prohibition Act vide F.I.R. No. 178 of 2009 for return of Mohd. Abdul Jabbar and also for return of Jahez articles. With the intervention of elders, both the parties entered into settlement on 01.08.2009. Abdul Jabbar and also for return of Jahez articles. With the intervention of elders, both the parties entered into settlement on 01.08.2009. In the said settlement deed, petitioner agreed to return all the Jahez articles. It was observed that the boy was 13 months old, as on the date of entering into the settlement deed dated 01.08.2009. As per the settlement deed executed between the parties, the child Mohd. Abdul Jabbar aged about 13 months old will be in the custody of mother and till the settlement of disputes in the Court, she has to bear all the needs of the child. It seems she obtained khula from the petitioner and it was specifically mentioned that after khula there is no relation between both the parties. 7. In the Counter filed by the respondent/wife, she admitted that the marriage between the respondent and petitioner was consummated and a child was born on 06.05.2008. She took khula and jahez articles were returned by the petitioner. She admitted that it was settled between the parties that minor child will remain with her. She further stated that she lived happily for about six or seven months only and later she noticed abnormal behavior of the petitioner at her matrimonial house. After delivery at Durra-shehwar Hospital, petitioner entered into the room and forcefully took the minor child by holding his neck like an animal and started running out of the hospital. The staff and doctors of the hospital chased him and caught him and when the police was called to the hospital, he handed over the child to the police, thus she saved the child with great difficulty. By showing the certificate of his mental condition, the relatives of the petitioner took him back to his house. The respondent apprehending threat of the petitioner’s abnormal behavior, she obtained khula from him and living separately from him. She apprehends danger to her minor child in the hands of the petitioner. Respondent did not Cross-examine PW-1 and she has not adduced any evidence to prove the mental condition of PW-1, but the trial Court relying the contention of the respondent, dismissed the petition. She apprehends danger to her minor child in the hands of the petitioner. Respondent did not Cross-examine PW-1 and she has not adduced any evidence to prove the mental condition of PW-1, but the trial Court relying the contention of the respondent, dismissed the petition. As per the settlement deed, custody and maintenance of the minor child was given to the mother, as such he filed a petition before the trial Court for visitation rights, but the trial Court observed that visitation rights between the parties is contrary to the settlement deed entered between the parties and accordingly dismissed the application. 8. Now it is for this Court to see whether the Order of the trial Court is on proper appreciation of facts or not. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that father is having every right to visit his child. Even if they entered into settlement, it will not come in the way. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2020 INSC 58 : (2020) 3 SCC 67 in which it was held that welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, child has human right to have love and affection of both parents. It was also held that visitation rights and contact rights of parent would not confer child’s custody and held as follows: “visitation of rights” or “contact rights” are also important for development of the child specially in cases where both parents live in different States and Countries. The concept of contact rights in the modern age would be contact by telephone, e-mail or in fact, we feel the best system of contact, if available between the parties should be video calling. With the increasing availability of internet, video calling is now very common and Courts dealing with the issue of custody of children must ensure that the parent who is denied custody of the child should be able to talk to her/his child as often as possible. Unless there are special circumstances to take a different view, the parent who is denied custody of the child should have the right to talk to his/her child for 5-10 minutes every day. This will help in maintaining and improving the bond between the child and the parent who is denied custody. Unless there are special circumstances to take a different view, the parent who is denied custody of the child should have the right to talk to his/her child for 5-10 minutes every day. This will help in maintaining and improving the bond between the child and the parent who is denied custody. If that bond is maintained, the child will have no difficulty in moving from one home to another during vacations or holidays. The purpose of this is, if we cannot provide one happy home with two parents to the child then let the child have the benefit of two happy homes with one parent each. 10. Respondent/wife remained ex-parte before the trial Court and even before this Court, she did not turn up. As on the date of the settlement between the parties, the boy was aged about three (3) months, thus custody was granted to the mother and now he is aged about 15 years. No doubt, father is also having visitation rights of the child, but in the settlement deed custody was granted to the mother and there was no mention regarding visitation rights of the father. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 1403 of 2009, for visitation of rights on 11.12.2009 and settlement deed was executed on 01.08.2009. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that child was aged around 7 years as on the date of claiming of visitation rights is incorrect. The respondent stated that the petitioner showed abnormal behavior toward the child, but she has not produced any medical certificate to prove her version. She also stated that the petitioner took away the child and got him back with great difficulty, but she did not contest the matter before the trial court. However, petitioner is not seeking custody of the child, but he is claiming only visitation rights, as on the date he is deprived of the child affection for 15 years. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant visitation rights to the appellant/petitioner once in a month i.e., on every second Saturday from 10:00 A.M to 05:00 P.M. The place of visitation can be decided by both the parties according to their convenience. 11. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant visitation rights to the appellant/petitioner once in a month i.e., on every second Saturday from 10:00 A.M to 05:00 P.M. The place of visitation can be decided by both the parties according to their convenience. 11. In the result, the Family Court Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Order of the trial Court and the decree of visitation rights are granted once in a month on every second Saturday from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM to the petitioner/husband. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.