S. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. B.C. RADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 28-4-2014 passed on I.A. No. 10 in M.C. No. 3866 of 2010. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.