PRATHIMA Vs. SUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/wife has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner / wife has filed an application under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) and Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short "Act"] in O.P.No.2378 of 2022, seeking for divorce and also for grant of a sum of Rs.75,00,000.00 towards permanent alimony as per Sec. 25 of the Act. When the case was pending, the respondent / husband filed an application under Sec. 26 of the Act in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.2378 of 2022, praying to grant visitation rights to him to see his minor child Liruthi, aged about 7 years, every weekend on Saturday and Sunday till the disposal of the main petition and the same was allowed partly on 27/6/2023 by the Court below with a direction to produec the child at the Child Care Centre attached to the Family Court at Chennai on the 1st Saturday and 3rd Saturday, every month at 11.00 a.m. To 2.00 p.m with certain conditions. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/wife has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed a petition for maintenance of the girl child, aged about 8 years, as early as in the month of February, 2023 and the respondent/father has failed to pay even a single rupee towards the child's maintenance till date. The Trial Court has failed to see that the petitioner is residing at Hosur along with her minor daughter and she has to avail leave from work to attend the hearings before the I Additional Family Court at Chennai and therefore, the order impugnd directing the petitioner to bring the tender child to Chennai to facilitate the respondent's visitation rights is against equity and justice. It would be extremely cumbersome and would cause serious strain to a tender child of 8 years to travel to Chennai from Hosur on every Saturday enbling her father to visit her child. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Court below has failed to see that the cost of travel both for the petitioner and the yound child should be borne by her and the Court below ignored the fact that the respondent has failed to maintain the minor child and this has led to the petitioner herein filing a petition for maintenance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is working in Bangalore and she is taking care of the minor child and whileso, travelling from Chennai to Bangalore along with the child causes enormous physical and emotional pain to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.P.No.2378 of 2022, seeking for maintenance and till date, the respondent has not paid any amount towards maintenance to the child and the order impugned granting visitation rights to the respondent / father causes severe hardship to the petitioner. A mother maintaining a child without the support of a father ought not to have been directed to bring her child to Chennai on her own cost to enable the father visit the child that too without any responsibility tagged on him. The learned counsel for the petitioner / wife further submits that the respondent / father may be permitted to vist her child at Hosur.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent /father would submit that there is a threat to the respondent's life from the petitioner's side since the petitioner's father is an influential person in the locality and there is apprehension to his life when he goes to Hosur and he is ready to visit the child at Vellore, which is a common place for both of them.