Smt. Sheela Kamath vs Sri. Raghavendra Nayak

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant- wife is directed against the impugned common order dated 21/03/2011 passed in M.C. No. 122/2006 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Mangalore so far as it relates to granting visitation rights to the respondent-husband. Further, the appellant has sought to direct the respondent to return gold ornaments weighing about 50 sovereigns, silver utensils and her personal belongings which are in his custody in his house. The appellant-wife has filed a petition before the Court below under Sections 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between her and respondent on 28.11.2004 at Sri. Venkataramana Temple, Mulki, by granting decree of divorce. The respondent-husband has also filed M.C.No. 89/2007 u/s 9of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the matters were clubbed together and taken up for consideration by the Court Below. The respondent-husband has filed a memo stating that he has no objection for granting a decree of divorce to the appellant, without admitting the various allegations made in the petition on the ground that, they are staying separately since four years and sought permission to see his child which is in the custody of the appellant-wife whenever he desires at all reasonable time. The appellant-wife has filed objection to the said memo. The Court below, in the light of the statements made in the memos and the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, has dismissed the petition filed by the respondent- husband u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as not pressed and allowed the petition filed by the appellant-wife under sections 13(1) (a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage solemnized between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband on 28.11.2004. Further, the Court below has ordered that, the custody of the child be continued with the appellant and the rights of visitation of the child was reserved to the respondent once in 15 days on Sundays and during the vacations of the school or any such holidays with prior intimation to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the Court below, so far as it relates to granting visiting rights of the child to the husband once in 15 days on Sundays and during the vacation of the school or any such holidays with prior intimation to the appellant, she has presented this appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for appellant Smt. Sandhya U. Prabhu and perused the impugned order. After careful perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned order passed by the Court below, we do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Court below in granting visitation rights of the child, aged about 5 years to the respondent-father. The respondent being the father of the child is equally entitled to see the welfare of his son. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the Court below is justified in granting visitation rights to the respondent. There is no justification or good grounds to interfere in the well considered order passed by the Court below. Nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.