The court emphasized the importance of the minor child's welfare and the impact of behavior on visitation rights.

ORDER :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Sri Kamtala Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Yarra Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (‘Family Court’), in I.A.No.1507 of 2023 in G.W.O.P.No.42 of 2023.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed G.W.O.P.No.42 of 2023 before the Family Court under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 , seeking relief of modification of order dated 12.10.2022, which was passed by the Family Court in F.C.O.P.No.520 of 2022 with respect to the visitation rights. The I.A. under revision was filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. for a direction to allow the revision petitioner to see his minor daughter on first and third week for eight hours on Sunday and one full day and night for second and fourth week Sunday or any other day of the every month while not disturbing the study of the minor child and during the pendency of the disposal of the G.W.O.P.

4. The marriage of the revision petitioner and the respondent was held on 10.05.2015 at KBR Convention, L.B.Nagar, Hyderbad, and they were blessed with baby girl on 06.05.2017. Due to differences they agreed for mutual consent divorce and divorce decree dated 12.10.2022 was passed. As per the terms and conditions agreed between them at that time, the revision petitioner in a state of confusion agreed to the condition that he would visit the minor child monthly once and the said visitation rights have been granted. The said term was consistent with the agreement of both the parties. Subsequently, there was harassment by the respondent and her father using the minor child as pawn to win him over. Currently, the minor child is at crucial stage of her life. The respondent is under influence of her father, who is employed in police department. The minor child is suffering with parent alienation syndrome and the said situation is taken advantage to take revenge on the revision petitioner rather than to address the grievance. The parent alienation syndrome leads to psychological issues in adulthood. The minor child lived with her father and grandparents till she attained four years of age. Currently, there are difficult issues like passport with words ‘divorced parents’, blocking of phone number and misguiding the child that the phone is not working. The minor child is not getting a chance to live with her father for over one and half years and the time spent with her father has been decreased with almost negligible access. The minor child enjoys company of her father and more particularly painting along with him and the company of the relations of paternal side. Due to minimal access, the child is getting no memories with her paternal relatives. The revision petitioner contends that he has right to spend quality with his minor child. Hence, the petition under revision is filed seeking visitation rights over and above the terms of the consent divorce decree.

5. The respondent opposed the petition stating that there was a mutual consent divorce on the agreed terms and conditions. The revision petitioner never took responsibility of the minor child and treated her as burden. The visitation rights are as per the terms of the agreement i.e., once in a month as agreed by both the parties. There was six months time after filing petition for divorce and there were no forceful circumstances that