Civil Revision No. 7028 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7028 of 2009 Date of decision : 7.5.2010 Ajit Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Dharminder Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Navin Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The parties are divorced spouses of each other. Their marriage was dissolved vide Lok Adalat award dated 14.12.2003. It was agreed therein that the minor son of the parties would continue to live with the petitioner mother who will not claim any maintenance etc. from the respondent. The respondent, sometime thereafter, filed a plea to obtain the custody of the child. In the course of those proceedings, he also filed a plea for the grant of interim custody of the child. Learned Trial Court declined the plea for the grant of interim custody of the child. However, it allowed visitation rights to the respondent. It was ordered that the petitioner herein shall bring along the minor child of the parties on the last Saturday of every month to enable him to meet the respondent. The petitioner is in revision against it. Civil Revision No. 7028 of 2009 -2- **** It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is thoroughly inappropriate in view of the fact that the respondent had himself agreed that he would not claim the custody of the child. I have been through the award dated 14.12.2003 granted by the Lok Adalat with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. A copy thereof is on the record as Annexure P/2. There is nothing, at all, in the course thereof whereby respondent may be indicated to have disabled himself from claiming visitation rights qua the child of the parties. Presently, this Court would confine itself to adjudication about the validity or otherwise of the orders granted by the learned Trial Court, lest any observation with regard to terms and conditions noticed in the award dated 14.12.2003 affects the merits of the plea filed by the respondent for the custody of the child. By the very nature of things, even separated parents would continue to have emotional bond with the child who may be putting up with one parent. The meeting of separates parent with the child would meet the emotional need of the former and also the latter. The fact that the estrange spouses could not carry on the matrimonial alliance does not affect their emotional chord with the offspring of their union. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the upholding of the impugned order might disturb the present matrimonial life of the petitioner who has entered into a matrimonial alliance afresh. Civil Revision No. 7028 of 2009 -3- **** Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, states that the averment made is invalid inasmuch as the respondent too has married again and he has no intention of embarrassing the petitioner. For the reasons noticed in an earlier part of this order, this Court is of the considered view that mere affording of visitation rights to the father cannot have any deleterious effect on the matrimonial life of the petitioner mother. If the petitioner mother has any unhappy experience in the course of visitation rights offered to the respondent, it will be open her to bring that to the notice of this Court and apply for the grant of appropriate orders in the relevant behalf. The petition shall stand negatived accordingly. However, in view of the peculiar nature of the litigation under adjudication, it is directed that the learned Trial Court (learned Guardian Judge concerned) shall dispose of the main petition within three months from the next date of hearing. There is already an order granted by this Court on the judicial side for the time-bound disposal of the petitions touching the custody of a child. The grant of that order is validated by the fact that such like matter do affect the mental status of the child who is putting with one parent. The disposal of the custody pleas must be adjudicated upon at the earliest. Disposed of accordingly. May 07, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 7028 of 2009 -4- ****