her love and affection on him, cannot be ignored and the same must be dealt with a humanitarian hand in respect of the fact that allegation and counter allegations are made by petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4 against each other and father of the child is some what out of picture in present petition. Thus, although the prayer of petitioner no. 1 for issuing writ of habeas corpus against respondents and transfer of custody of corpus, who is eight year old child of respondent no. 4 and her husband, in favour of his grandmother, is declined and refused by this Court on the basis of discussion mentioned above. In my considered opinion, petitioner no. 1 shall have a visitation rights over the child (petitioner no. 2). However, this Court directs respondent no. 4 to provide a right to meet the corpus to petitioner no. 1, who is his grandmother on regular basis preferably once in a month subject to convenience of the child, on a holiday, with prior arrangement made by respondent no. 4, by way of telephonic consultation with petitioner no. 1, who is her mother-in-law, at the place of choice of respondent no. 4. The period of meeting of each day may include a period of three to six hours at a time, however, the meeting in a month may be postponed if the examinations of child are underway or on card. The meeting may be supervised by respondent no. 4 to her discretion.
