Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. - (1.) After having argued the appeal on merits for some time, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (wife/mother) prayed that during the pendency of this litigation, the appellant (wife/mother) despite having the orders in her favour from Foreign Courts in relation to the custody of her children, she has neither got the custody and nor has been able to meet and spend some time with them. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the appellant, who is residing in U.S.A, be allowed to meet her children on any terms and conditions.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent (father/husband) has no objection to give visitation rights to the appellant (wife/mother) for a short duration to enable her to meet and spend some time with her two minor children. Learned counsel, however, submitted that this Court may also consider it proper to interact with the children who are now quite matured (16 years) and secondly, this Court should fix venue of meeting at Kottayam (Kerala) where the respondent is residing with the two children rather than to any other place.
(3.) In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant, however, expressed some apprehension in fixing the meeting place at Kottayam. Learned counsel, on her part, suggested that instead of Kottayam, this Court, if consider it proper, may fix any other place such as Bangalore where the appellant's father is residing or Delhi or Mangalore, which is nearer to Kottayam.;