Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80691-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 313 of 2025 Appellant :- Palak Khemani Respondent :- State of U.P. and 4 others Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Alekh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Raj Kumar Srivastava, Hari Bans Singh Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1033 of 2024, wherein though the parties have been left to contest the right to seek custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, considering the welfare of child, the respondent has been granted visitation rights to meet his daughter on every Sunday from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM without any hindrance and the venue of visitation rights has been directed to be decided by the SHO, Police Station- Laksa, Varanasi, who has been directed to comply with the aforesaid order. 2. Counsel for the petitioner with the aid of judgment in Mithlesh Maurya and another Vs. State of U.P. and others : Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 82 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2024, made submissions that the visitation rights could not have been granted by the learned Single Judge in a Habeas Corpus Petition and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further submissions have been made pertaining to the implementation of the directions given by learned Single Judge, wherein certain difficulties in its implementation have been pointed out. 3. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned and has placed reliance on Tejaswani Gaud and others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others : AIR 2019 SC 2318, Sumana Bashin Vs. Neeraj Bashin : (2010) 11 SCC 730, Gayatri Bajaj Vs. Jiten Bhalla : AIR 2013 SC 102 and Kumar V. Jahgirdar Vs. Chetana Ramatheertha : (2004) 2 SCC 688. 4. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties have perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge reveals that while the petition, which was filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus, was not entertained insofar as the custody was sought by the respondent from the appellant, however, as noticed, considering the welfare of the child, visitation rights were granted and directions were given for enforcing the said visitation rights. It cannot be said as a Rule of thumb that in a Habeas Corpus petition, visitation rights cannot be granted. It depends on facts and circumstances of each given case wherein the Court has to decide whether it would be appropriate in given circumstance to grant visitation rights or not and therefore, the submissions made that in the petition filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus, no visitation rights could have been granted, cannot be countenanced. 6. So far as the difficulties sought to be projected by the petitioner in the implementation of the order impugned is concerned, if genuinely, there are difficulties in implementing the order and/or the order is being misused by the respondent, it is always open for the petitioner to move an appropriate exhaustive application before the learned Single Judge seeking modification of the order passed in the given circumstances. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal stands disposed of. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Mukesh Pal/P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad