Based on the provided legal document, the main legal points are as follows:

1. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions: The judgment emphasizes that statutory provisions should be interpreted in a manner that advances their primary purpose. In cases of ambiguity, the interpretation that best serves the objective of preventing domestic violence and safeguarding the safety of the affected persons and children should be preferred (!) (!) .

2. Purpose and Object of the Domestic Violence Act: The Act is enacted to prevent domestic violence and to provide protection orders that ensure the safety and well-being of the aggrieved person and the child. Any interpretation that undermines these objectives is to be avoided (!) .

3. Interpretation of Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act: The provision allows the court, at any stage of hearing, to grant temporary custody of a child to the aggrieved person or her representative, and to specify visitation arrangements. If the court believes that visitation might harm the child's interests, it can refuse such visits (!) (!) .

4. Maintenance of Visitation Rights Without Custody Orders: The court held that a husband can maintain an application for visitation rights under the proviso to Section 21 even if there is no existing application for custody by the aggrieved person. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the Act and ensures the child's and the parties' interests are protected (!) (!) .

5. Legal Interpretation and Legislative Intent: The court stresses that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its literal meaning. Courts should avoid judicial legislation or reading into the statute words that are not present, especially when the language is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation (!) (!) .

6. Ambiguity and Purposeful Interpretation: When a statutory provision is ambiguous, courts may resort to external aid to interpret the legislative intent, aiming to avoid absurd results or redundancy. The interpretation should promote the object of the legislation, which in this context is to prevent domestic violence and protect the safety of persons and children involved (!) (!) .

7. Custody and Visitation Rights in Family Disputes: The case demonstrates that even in the absence of a specific custody order, a husband may seek visitation rights, and such rights are consistent with the legislative intent to protect the child's interests and the rights of the parties (!) (!) .

8. Court's Discretion and Remand: The court acknowledged that certain orders regarding visitation frequency may have been made without full consideration of the child's best interests. Such orders are to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Magistrate for a proper, law-compliant determination (!) (!) .

These points collectively highlight the importance of interpreting domestic violence legislation in a manner that furthers its protective purpose, allowing for flexible yet lawful arrangements for custody and visitation that serve the best interests of the child and the safety of the affected persons.