Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
D.N. Manimanjari - Petitioner
Vs.
S. Virupaksheswara Rao - Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6852 of 2017
Decided On : 21-12-2017
For the Petitioner: Smt. S. Vani
For the Respondent: Ms. G. Sri Devi
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 – Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act 2005- Section 21, 29 - Revision cause title - Permanent custody - Minor children - Sought for permanent alimony - Towards maintenance and education expenses of the 2 minor children and for costs - Divorce petition - Custody Orders - Permanent alimony and maintenance relief’s - Seeking visitation rights of the 2 children. On contest by order, dismissed the petition while saying relationship not in dispute and the 2 children are staying with mother who are away to the petitioner and the 2 children were when interviewed as to willing to meet their father, they stated they are not interested and thereby they cannot be compelled to meet their father to consider his request for visitation rights, but for to decide in a custody petition in considering the interest of the children and thereby without consent of children he cannot direct the children to visit their father. - Held, the visiting rights of the children sought by the father dismissed is not be all and end all for such an order is even prone to an appeal under Section 29 of DVC Act before the Court of Sessions and from the observation therein as referred supra of such visitation matter to be decided in the custody petition pending in the matrimonial lis and for the present children expressed unwillingness to go to the father not chosen to give visitation rights. Apart from even coming to the counter contentions in this petition before the lower Court of the son got disturbed and went in depression and needs treatment of Psychiatrist or children afraid of the so called psychic behaviour of the father and reluctant to interact from the alleged previous experience concerned, there is basically but for the averments including in the main divorce petition no any record of the father of the children is a psycho or sadist much less to appreciate any argument in this revision in this regard. - Even custody remained with the mother, right of the father to see the children at the intervals cannot be ignored and as per the Halsburys law of England referred supra the father and mother got equal right to shower their love and affection to the children and as held in Rosy Jacob supra the Court dealing with custody and guardianship matters and the disputes between the father and mother in relation to the custody of the children is expected to strike a just and proper balance on the rights, requirements and sentiments - Having regard to the above, the order of the lower Court in allowing the petition to the extent of permitting the father of the children to see and interact with the children on every Sunday between 10 AM and 12 Noon before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, no way requires interference, but for to cooperate even by the mother of the child to implement the order instead of driving the Family Court to implement with legal coercion by invoking the provisions of Sections 25, 26 and 40 to 45 of Guardians and Wards Act - Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
1. The revision petitioner is no other the wife of the revision respondent. The O.P. No. 1084 of 2013 was filed by the revision petitioner by name Smt. D.N. Manimanjari, advocate as per the revision cause title, against her husband by name S.Virupakshewara Rao, for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and therein she also sought for permanent custody of the minor children i.e., Master S. Pradyumna born on 03.09.2003 and baby S.Pravalika born on 22.05.2006 and also sought for permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per month towards maintenance and education expenses of the 2 minor children and for costs.
2. The said divorce petition with custody petition, permanent alimony and maintenance relief’s was filed on 07.08.2013 and the same is under contest. She also filed it appears DVC. No. 58 of 2014. In the pending DVC, Crl.M.P.No.1605 of 2014 filed by her husband under Section 21 of PWDV Act seeking visitation rights of the 2 children. On contest by order dated 24.03.2016, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition while saying relationship not in dispute and the 2 children are staying with mother who are away to the petitioner and the 2 children were when interviewed as to willing to meet their father, they stated they are not interested and thereby they cannot be compelled to meet their father to consider his request for visitation rights, but for to decide in a custody petition in considering the interest of the children and thereby without consent of children he cannot direct the children to visit their father. Leave about the correctness of the order and any appeal filed under Section 29 of PWDV Act against it or not, even from the very order that is not the be all and end all in considering any entitlement to custody and visitation rights or not. That order in DVC case was dated 24.03.2016. The father of the children filed in the main divorce-cum-custody-cum-permanent alimony and maintenance petition supra, I.A.No.534 of 2014 seeking visitation of rights of children on every Saturday and Sunday. It is in saying the mother of the children who is his wife not allowing him to see the children for the last one year which swindles the love and affection of the children towards him and vice versa and he is liking the children a lot and he is curious of seeing them a lot.
3. The counter filed in opposing by mother of the children with whom the children are is with the contest that he never tried to reach the children nor expressed love and affection and was arrogantly behaving with the children and even beating cruelly and threatening them with dire consequences and the son got disturbed and went in depression and was treated by psychiatrist and the children are very much afraid of the behaviour of the father and are reluctant to interact with their father on account of previous experience hence to dismiss the petition. From that contest by impugned order dated 06.10.2017, the learned Judge Family Court, Hyderabad, permitted the father of the children to see and interact on every Sunday between 10 AM and 12 Noon before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and with observations in support of that order that the main petition O.P.No.1084 of 2013 is under contest and evidence is in progress since coming for respondents evidence after petitioners evidence recorded and it may consume some more time for its disposal. The children are in the care and custody of the mother and the petitioner being the father of the children apart from natural guardian is also entitled to see and interact with the children to share love and affection and such interaction and sharing of love and affection would go long way for healthy growth and nourishment of children and it gives encouragement and motivation to the children besides acquire knowledge by sharing the love and affection of their father equally which is like the affection they are sharing with t
