IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 16.08.2010 C.R.No.2130 of 2009 Yuresh Sinha ...Petitioner Versus Nivedita Sinha ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The parties dissolved their marriage by mutual consent vide decree of divorce dated 10.11.2008. One of the conditions of the settlement was that the petitioner would have visiting rights to meet the girl child by sending prior intimation to the respondent herein. Subsequently, on an application filed by the petitioner, the terms of visitation rights were settled on 18.02.2009 and the parties agreed to the following terms and conditions : “(a) Visiting rights would be restricted only twice a month i.e. from first and third Saturdays of the month from 1.00 PM to 7.00 PM. (b) The applicant would be allowed to take the child in any Mall situated in Gurgaon during this period. (c) The applicant alone would have the visiting rights and none else. C.R.No.2130 of 2009 (d) During visits the applicant would be entitled to give gifts, cash, eatables brought by him for the child Aanya. (e) The applicant/petitioner would be entitled to speak to the child on the mobile phone of the respondent at 8.30 PM daily.” Apart from the aforesaid terms and conditions, the petitioner sought the custody of the child during summer and winter vacations. The said right was declined by the learned trial Court on the ground that it would be inconvenient for the mother and child to allow the custody of the child during summer and winter vacations. A perusal of the order dissolving marriage on 10.11.2008 by mutual consent shows that this order grants only visiting rights. The said rights do not include the right to take the girl child during summer and winter vacations. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 16.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2