ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 14.07.2022, allowing the petition in I.A.No.548 of 2021 in HMOP No.115 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, filed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to grant visitation rights of the child, through electronic contacts, namely, Whats-App once in fortnight in the interests of justice.

2. Heard Ms. M. Radha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner is the respondent and the respondent is the petitioner in I.A.No.548 of 2021.

4. HMOP No.115 of 2021 was filed by the respondent herein (husband) against the revision petitioner (wife) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’, for brevity) to order restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was contested. Pending adjudication of the main proceeding, the husband filed I.A.No.548 of 2021 seeking visitation rights of the child. It is contended that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 16.08.2018 and a male child was born on 16.07.2020, but after the birth of the baby, differences cropped up between them about the performance of traditional ceremonies of the newly born baby and thereafter, the wife joined her parents at Narasaraopet on 29.10.2020 after the birth of the child, and therefore, the petitioner used to visit the wife now and then and finally on 16.01.2021, he visited the wife and the baby but, on that day, his father-in-law and brother-in-law assaulted and injured him without any justifiable cause, and therefore, he gave a complaint to the police against his father-in-law and brother-in-law and consequently, his wife denied his visitation rights, though he is very fond of the baby and wanted to see his welfare and interest.

5. The petition was opposed by filing counter denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the averments are made for the purpose of filing the petition and that even prior to the birth of the child, the husband suspected the fidelity of his wife and openly proclaimed that the child was not born through him and he never showed any interest to see the child nor did he care the welfare of the child and further that the petitioner, with the political backings, caused harassment to arrest the wife and her parents and intentionally defaming them spreading rumors about the conduct and character of the wife, and thereby, she alone is taking care of the child with the support of her parents. It is further stated that at the tender age of the child, if the husband is permitted to get connect the child through Whats-App, the husband would blackmail the child emotionally and moreover the husband is angry and temperament person as he attacked his wife and her family members for silly reasons, and therefore, it is not safe for the child, if the relief is granted and that this petition was filed only to harass his wife without having any love and affection for her or the child since the beginning.

6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition and permitted the petitioner to have visitation rights to see the minor child once in fortnight, physically, i.e., on 1st and 4th Saturdays between 11 AM and 4 PM in the Court premises till disposal of the main application.

7. Having been aggrieved by the order, the respondent (wife)

preferred this revision petition.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner (wife) firstly submitted that the relief which is not asked for should not be granted and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao & Another1. She further contended that the petition under Section

1 2022 Live Law (SC) 638

26 of the Act shall be independently filed and it cannot be filed as an interlocutory application in a petition pending under Section 9 of the