THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.843 of 2011 ORDER This civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 24.02.2011, passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.218 of 2010 in O.P.No.1354 of 2009, whereunder the learned Judge permitted the respondent herein to see his minor child on every Sunday in a month between 2.00 to 4.00 PM in the presence of the authorities of Mekka Masjid. 2. The marriage of first petitioner with the respondent was performed on 16.08.2001 and out of their wedlock, a male child by name, Shaik Fahad Ali, was born on 10.02.2004. It is stated that the respondent pronounced ‘Talaq’ and Talaqnama dated 31.07.2005, was reduced into writing and the elders decided that the custody of the child would be given to the first petitioner- mother. After divorce, she married the second petitioner. While so, the respondent filed the above said I.A. for interim custody of the minor child. The Court below while rejecting his claim for interim custody, permitted the respondent to see his minor child on every Sunday in a month between 2.00 to 4.00 PM in the presence of authorities of Mekka Masjid. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision. 3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent never looked after the welfare of minor child and that after six years of divorce, he filed the said petition only to harass the mother. He further contended that W.P.No.11685 of 2009 filed for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed by this Court on 25.09.2009 by imposing costs of Rs.15,000/-on the respondent, but he failed to pay the same. He also contended that as the entry of the first petitioner is prohibited in all mosques and she is now residing at Chennai, the Court below ought not to have directed her to bring the child to Makka Masjid for the respondent’s visit. 5 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent-father being a natural guardian is entitled to the custody of the minor child and that the Court below has rightly granted visiting rights to him, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 6. The record shows that since the date of birth, the child is in the custody of the first petitioner-mother. The respondent, who stayed in USA for the last six years, is now residing in Hyderabad. The respondent being a natural guardian is entitled to see his minor child. As such, the Court below granted him the visiting rights once in a month in the presence of the authorities of Mekka Masjid. I find no infirmity in the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:05.08.2011 sj