Application u/s 21 was accepted by the judge and  written say  has been given by opposite counsel after which i sumbitted written argument for visitation on one date, oral argument took place on another date  . Judge began asking about maintainability of application to opposite counsel .  The highlighted red area was read to the judge but he began nodding his head in a manner no .

Respondent has exhibited With the above Exhibit A and evidence regarding neglect of the child on hand by the applicant ,the respondent sees no reason as to why an unfit parent (Applicant ) who has abused the child is allowed to retain custody of the child  and  why visitation should not be passed towards the non custodial parent  with the below mentioned prayer .

It is humbly prayed that this urgency application be passed   

(a)  That the child be handed over from door to door so that respondent on each second , fourth or the fifth Sunday of the calendar month to pick-up /drop the child Rochelle for her Sunday Mass and Sunday school catechism religious class 

 (b) First Friday and third Friday from 7.30 p.m upto Sunday 9.00 p.m  of each and every month   post school/college closure overnight physical custody  of child to the Respondent  at the respondents place or in the company of relatives or friends of the respondent under their  supervision. Further the respondent can be subjected for a breath analyzer test anytime the child is in his care with full costs to be borne by the applicant.

 (c) 50% overnight access/ physical custody at the home of respondent for the first half of the Annual vacation time period with the Respondent or in the company of relatives or friends of the respondent under their supervision and can be subjected to a breath analyzer test while the child is in his care with full costs to be borne by the applicant.

 ( d) Entire  Christmas holidays overnight access  from 23 rd of December  up to 31 st of December to be spent with the respondent in the even numbered years  for example  2012,2014 etc at his place or in the company of relatives or his friends under their supervision.

Respondent argued and said that even criminals get visitation under supervision and why should he not be given visitation under supervision .opp counsel read allegations from petition and concluded that as applicant was alone hence no F.I.R .Respondent rebutted allegations by saying we live in a modern era of mobile phones if Domestic Violence has taken place there should have been several F.I.R's and there is not even one F.I.R filed 

Respondent showed the attached DV judgement where in visitation has been granted in DV than judge nodded his head in a manner saying yes but i requested for filing of the judgement by way of application on next hearing .Any experts or professional person  can debate on this issue of maintainability of the application for visitation u/s sec 21 of DV act . Even though visitation can be granted under gaurdians and wards act sec 25 .

The bible quotes :- Pontius Pilate a Roman governor and supreme judge in the province from 26-37 A.D., Pilate had the sole authority to execute a criminal. Like in the bible so as the Jud** trying to wash away his hands :-) as below 

Matthew 27:24 

So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves."