ORDER

Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.1 in M.C.No.85/2023 dated 05.03.2024 by the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM at Karkala, the mother is before this Court. The parties are referred to as the husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

2. The respondent/father has filed the M.C. seeking restitution of conjugal rights, several objections with regard to the jurisdiction was also taken. It is stated that the mother is residing at Ujire, Belthangandy Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The respondent/father is residing at Mudar Village, Karkala Taluk, Bajegoli Post, Udupi District. Earlier on the petition filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance, the Court below had granted Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. The husband had filed the present I.A., seeking visitation rights once in a week. For that the objections are filed by the petitioner/mother. Apart from the other objections, it is stated that though the Court below had ordered an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, the husband has not paid any amount and without paying the said maintenance, as she is not able to maintain herself, he is not entitled for any relief. However, the Court below by impugned order had allowed the I.A., filed by the father and permitted him to visit the child in the presence of the mother at the Court premises between 3.00 pm to 5.00 pm., on the first and fourth Saturday of every month or as per the choice of the parties, which shall be reported to the Court below. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner/mother is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/mother had made two submissions. One is that the mother had to travel all the way 60 kms., to the Court premises, facilitating the father to exercise his visitation rights. The father who has not even chosen to pay the maintenance to the wife he cannot say that he has to see the child by travelling 60 kms., every time. He submits that it is not possible for the mother to travel and also for the child and unless the maintenance is paid he shall not be permitted to exercise his visitation rights.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/father submits that as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/mother, it is not 60 kms but it is only 35 kms and there cannot be any difficulty to travel. It is submitted that infact, she is not staying in the village, she is working in Bangalore and he will come up with the objections with regard to that. It is submitted that the scope of this petition cannot be enlarged.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material placed on record. The order impugned before this Court is the visitation rights granted to the father in the Court premises in whose jurisdiction the father is staying. Admittedly, the mother along with the child is staying away from the said place. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/mother it is 60 kms., according to the learned counsel for the respondent/father, it is 35 kms. Whether it is 35 kms. or 60 kms., the child cannot be asked to travel all the way just to facilitate the father to meet him. If at all the father wants to meet the child, he should go to the place where the child is staying and can meet the child.

6. When coming to the second submission with the regard to the non-payment of maintenance, the Court below had already passed an order that was not assailed by the respondent/father. Now, he submits that, she is employed and he wants to file the objections to that. This Court is not inclined to go into those aspects. It is always open for the father to question the order and also for the mother to seek execution of the said order. In view of the same, this Court is passing the following;

ORDER

i. As directed by the Court below between 3 pm.

to 5 pm on first and fourth Saturday of every month, the father can meet the child in the place where the wife is staying and the place of exercising the visitation rights should be in the Court premises at Belthangady.