T. Amarnath Goud, J. - (1.)The facts, briefly stated, are that, the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for invoking the power of superintendence on this Hon'ble High Court to set aside the order dtd. 16/3/2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No.7) Agartala, West Tripura in Misc Case No.2058/2020 arising out of C.R. 128/2020. The petitioners also challenged the order dtd. 15/9/2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2021 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura Agartala(Court No.5), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was also rejected. The petitioners further seeks a direction upon the respondents to grant the petitioners residential accommodation in the residence of respondent No.1. Under compelling circumstances, petitioner No.1 took a house on rent and she is living there with petitioners No.2 and 3(minor son and daughter). As such, the petitioner No.1 is burdened with the payment of rent from the rented house. The petitioners were living in the rented house without proper furniture, utensils, etc. Situated thus, the petitioners filed a case under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was registered as C.R. 128/2020 seeking various reliefs. Respondent No.1 also filed an objection in Misc 2058 of 2020 praying for dismissal of the interim prayer made by the petitioners. Hence, this instant revision petition.
In the instant CRP, the petitioner-wife has prayed for the following reliefs:-

" i. Admit this petition

ii. Issue notice upon the respondents;

iii. Call for the relevant records;

iv. After hearing the parties be pleased to set aside the Judgment and Order dtd. 16/3/2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura (Court No.7) in Case No. Misc. 2058 of 2020 and the Order dtd. 15/9/2021 passed in Crl. Appeal No.11/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala, West Tripura (Court No.5) and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to allow the petitioners to reside in the shared household of the respondent No.1 and further not to obstruct the petitioners from excess to common passage, entrance and further not to deprive the petitioners of water supply, electricity, gas connection etc. After hearing the parties direct the respondent No.1 to pay additional maintenance of Rs.20,000.00 per month a part from the maintenance of Rs.35,000.00 per month for additional expenses incurred by the petitioner.

AND

In the interim, be pleased to stay further proceedings of Case No.C.R. 128 of 2020 pending in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, West Tripura (Court No.7) till disposal of the present petition."

(2.)Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. counsel and Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.)When the case is called, both the learned counsels are present along with their respective clients, namely, Smt. Saheli Dey (Kar Bhowmik), wife-petitioner No.1 and the Sri Shibaji Kar Bhowmik, husband-respondent No.1. The children are also present. In the open Court, this Court discussed with the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband with regard to the custody of their children in the presence of their respective counsels. This Court suggested to share the custody of the children not on the visitation right of the parent but on the visitation right of the children with the parent in the larger interest of the children since the children cannot be deprived of the love and affection of both the parent. It is needless to say that parents cannot be a guest in the life of the children. Allowing a parent to visit the children occasionally and periodically for few minutes in Court, Police station, Malls, Temple, and the house of the parent in whose custody the children are may not be a just decision towards the children. The children must get absolute freedom with each parent, to know them and understand them better instead of being tutored by one parent against another. In view of the same, this Court feels that children should be given visitation rights to and stay with the parent but not the parent visiting the child.
;