The natural right of a parent to visitation persists despite prior agreements that forfeit custody.

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner-

respondent aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.484 of 2022 in G.W.O.P. No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

2. The respondent No.1 was the husband and the respondent No.2 was the mother-in-law of the revision petitioner herein. The respondents filed G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2022 seeking permanent custody of the minor child by name Zara Aiman and also filed I.A.No.484 of 2022 under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for visitation rights for two days in a fortnight at Nalgonda from Saturday afternoon till Monday morning hours. The revision petition herein, who was the respondent in the said G.W.O.P. and I.A., filed counter opposing the said petition and application.

3. As per the contentions of the parties, the revision petitioner was married with the respondent No.1 on 26.04.2013 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child by name Zara Aiman on 26.01.2014. Disputes arose between the revision petitioner and respondent No.1, as such, they decided to separate themselves by Qula/divorce. The revision petitioner and the respondent No.1 entered into a Memorandum of Agreement cum Understanding on 22.11.2020, wherein it was agreed that the respondent No.1 had no right or claim over the daughter namely, Zara in near future. For the safeguard of female child, they agreed to keep the child with the revision petitioner herein and that the respondent No.1 herein shall not file any case or cases before the court claiming the custody of the daughter.

4. The respondent No.1 suppressing the Memorandum of Agreement cum Understanding dated 22.11.2020 filed G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2022 along with his mother (i.e., respondent No.2 herein) seeking permanent custody of the minor child and filed I.A.No.484 of 2022 for visiting rights.

5. The learned Judge, Family Court – cum – III Additional District Judge, Nalgonda passed the impugned order allowing visiting rights to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to visit the minor child, Zara Aiman on every working Saturday from 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. at District Legal Services Authority, Nalgonda in the presence of the officers therein until further orders.

6. Aggrieved by the said order granting visiting rights to the respondents 1 and 2 herein, the revision petitioner (i.e., the mother of the child, respondent in I.A.No.484 of 2022), preferred this revision petition.

7. Heard Sri E. Sreenivas Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kalpana Badola, the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the respondent No.1 herein in the Memorandum of Agreement cum Understanding dated 22.11.2020 specifically agreed not to claim any right over the minor child and not to file any case for custody of the child, but violated the Memorandum of Agreement cum Understanding. The respondent No.2 was not entitled to any claim over the minor child as she was not the guardian. The learned Judge, Family Court failed to see that the revision petitioner and the respondent No.1 were separated by taking mutual divorce as per their customs and therefore, the question of claiming the custody of the child would not arise. There was no provision made in the Memorandum of Agreement cum Understanding dated 22.11.2020 for visitation rights by the respondents. Now it was not open for the respondents to claim the custody of the minor child and visiting rights. The trial court without discussing about the Memorandum of Agreement cum Understanding passed a cryptic order and prayed to allow the revision