Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. We had heard the parties at length on August 17, 2016 and had indicated that judgment would be pronounced today. The reason was the desire of the Court to go through the pleadings and the voluminous record in the appeal which spans 569 pages. We did so for the reason the parties had argued the appeal themselves.

2. The voluminous record is replete with applications which are verbose and were disposed of on August 17, 2016. They are full of allegations and counter allegations against each other. Said pleadings are irrelevant to decide the issue which arises in the appeal.

3. The wife is aggrieved by the impugned order dated August 07, 2014 refusing to modify the visitation rights granted to the respondent to enable him to meet the son and the daughter of the parties who are now aged 16 years and 15 years respectively. The reason given by the learned Judge Family Court is that the Court is not competent to modify the order passed by the learned Predecessor Court.

4. The reasoning is ex-facie incorrect for the reason any change in circumstance would empower a Court to modify a previous order passed concerning visitation rights.

5. The appellant and the re