JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

After having argued the appeal on merits for some time, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (wife/mother) prayed that during the pendency of this litigation, the appellant (wife/mother) despite having the orders in her favour from Foreign Courts in relation to the custody of her children, she has neither got the custody and nor has been able to meet and spend some time with them. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the appellant, who is residing in U.S.A, be allowed to meet her children on any terms and conditions.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent (father/husband) has no objection to give visitation rights to the appellant (wife/mother) for a short duration to enable her to meet and spend some time with her two minor children. Learned counsel, however, submitted that this Court may also consider it proper to interact with the children who are now quite matured (16 years) and secondly, this Court should fix venue of meeting at Kottayam (Kerala) where the respondent is residing with the two children rather than to any other place.

3. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant, however, expressed some apprehension in fixing the meeting place at Kottayam. Learned counsel, on her part, suggested that instead of Kottayam, this Court, if consider it proper, may fix any other place such as Bangalore where the appellant's father is residing or Delhi or Mangalore, which is nearer to Kottayam.

4. To these places, learned counsel for the respondent expressed his reservations and reiterated that it should preferably be at Kottayam.

5. We heard the learned counsel including the appellant's father and the respondent who were present in person in Court.

6. Keeping in view the entire scenario, which we feel is rather unfortunate, and most importantly taking into consideration the welfare of the children and bearing in mind the feelings of love and affection of every mother for her children to whom she gives birth and at the same time appreciating the fine gesture shown by the respondent (husband) in not objecting to grant of such visitation rights, if given to the appellant, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of all family members to pass the following order:

1. The appellant (mother) is granted visitation rights to meet her two children, who are presently with the respondent.

2. The venue of meeting of the appellant with her two children would be at Mangalore.

3. The total duration of visiting rights to the appellant would be one week (7 days).

4. The timings to meet would be from 9.00 A.M to 9.00 P.M. every day.

5. The meeting would be at a place where the appellant would be staying in Mangalore - be that in a good Hotel or a residence, as the case may be, and at the discretion of the appellant.

6. During meeting hours, the respondent would not, in any manner, interfere or participate in the meetings between the appellant and the children.

7. During one week or till the appellant leaves India, the respondent would not try to enforce any order or directions issued by any Court/Authority against the appellant in any pending or/and decided case nor would create any embarrassing situation for the appellant and her parents.

8. Similarly the Appellant would not try to enforce any order or direction issued by any Court/Authority of United States of America or any other foreign country against the Respondent and their two children for whom the visitation rights are being given herein.

9. Needless to say, the appellant would be free to give any kind of gifts to the children of her choice and of the liking of the children.

10. Since the appellant has to arrange for Visa, Air Tickets etc. to visit India, she will accordingly inform her exact date of arrival in India and the date of reaching Mangalore well in advance to the respondent directly, or/and to the respondent's lawyer (Advocate-on-Record) through her lawyer (Advocate-on-Record) by e-mail so that the re