Bollepalle Sandhya Rani v. Kurpati Madhusudhana Rao

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT C.R.P.No.2853_OF 2017 ORDER:

The respondent in G.O.P.No.3 of 2013, in the Court of the III-Additional District Judge, Kurnool, is the revision petitioner. The Court below through the order impugned in revision permitted visitation rights to the respondent herein. The learned trial Judge after taking note of the stand taken in the counter affidavit has passed a reasonable and practical order. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, challenges the visitation rights by referring to a few of the commissions and omissions by the respondent. This Court is of the view that the scope of revision is limited as to whether the respondent is entitled for visitation rights, if so whether the visitation rights are granted as is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the revision petitioner has any grievances in respondent even in the working out of the visitation rights given by the trial Court, the remedies are independent and otherwise.

I do not see illegality or irregularity in the order under revision. Revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with the above observations. There shall be no order as costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

____________ S.V.BHATT, J 23rd June, 2017 Lrkm