IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.37 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 10, 2011 MEENA KUMARI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS JAGIR DASS & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'), vide order dated 11.4.2007, allowed Sahil, presently aged 11 years, son of the petitioner, to meet the petitioner in court on first and last Saturday of every month from 1.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., during the pendency of the petition. However, visitation rights of Himanshu, presently aged 13 years, have been declined. 2 Unpleasant facts leading to passing of the impugned order are that two children; namely, Himanshu and Sahil, were born to Om Parkash and the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested for the murder of her husband-Om Parkash. Himanshu happened to be a prosecution witness in regard to allegations of Criminal Revision No.37 of 2009 (O&M) 2 murder against the petitioner and gave evidence before the Court of Sessions. While the petitioner was acquitted of having committing the offence, giving her benefit of doubt, co- accused/Jaswant, who purportedly was paramour of the petitioner, has been convicted for commission of the offence. 3 The two children started living with the respondents, who are close relatives. The parties are living in the same house. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed above, the petitioner was allowed to meet Sahil. She was, however, not given access to meet Himanshu. 5 The petitioner carried an appeal in the Court of Sessions. Vide other impugned order dated 11.9.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, the appeal has been dismissed and a direction has been issued to the trial Court to complete proceedings and decide the main petition. 6 This revision petition has been filed after a delay of 368 days. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the children have been living with the respondents for 8 long years and, therefore, have been tutored. The petitioner is the biological mother and, therefore, visitation rights to the mother should not be denied. 8 Learned counsel for the respondents contends that Himanshu was an eye witness to the murder committed by the petitioner and Jaswant. In such circumstances, the children will not get a good impression on meeting the petitioner. Criminal Revision No.37 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Contention has also been made to the effect that the petitioner was caught with a person which shows that association of children with her will not be conducive to a healthy upbringing of the children. 9 I have considered the rival contentions. 10 Himanshu and Sahil are present in court and I have met them in the Chamber. Both the children have assertively said that they do not want to meet or interact with the petitioner, in view of her conduct that has been perceived by them during the previous meetings with her. Rest of the details need not be given at this stage in the order for the benefit of the children. 11 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow the petitioner to meet the children. 12 The petition is, accordingly, decided while holding that the petitioner will not be given liberty to meet either of the two children. 13 However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. August 10, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?