Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 92
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Nooty Sindhu Sharma – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.360 of 2020 & IA No.2 of 2020 In/And Civil Revision Petition No. 735 of 2020
Decided on : 01-06-2020
Point of Law :
Children cannot be deprived of affection of the non-custodial parent (NVV) by the custodial parent (SS) without adducing even prima facie proof, by making false allegations and raising highly exaggerated fears
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Art.227 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i)(a) - Custody of child - Divorce - Harassment and cruelty - Dissolution of marriage -Revisions are filed challenging order - Court below took note of the contentions of the parties and the legal position relating to grant of visitation rights and held that the children ought to get the love and affection of both parents -
Finding of the Court:
After the younger child completes 4 years of age, she and the elder child shall spend time with NVV continuously as above during the school vacations - (iv) NVV shall take good care and supervise the children when they are with him and keep them happy, safe and healthy - (v) Both parties are directed not to poison the minds of the children against the other parent since it would not be in the best interest of the children - (vi) Counsel for the parties shall advise the parties to comply with the above order scrupulously without fail -
Result: Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed.
ORDER :
These two Revisions are filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dt.23.12.2019 in IA No.91 of 2019 in HMOP.No.117 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Court-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short “the Court below”).
2. The said HMOP was filed on 12.9.2019 by the petitioner in CRP.No.360 of 2020/respondent in CRP No.735 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to ‘NVV’ i.e., the husband) under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) alleging that the respondent in CRP.No.360 of 2020/petitioner in CRP No.735 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to ‘SS’ i.e., the wife) had treated him and his family members with cruelty and sought relief of dissolution of the marriage solemnized between them on 02.08.2012.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed by SS in the OP till date.
4. NVV and the SS have two minor children by name Baby Rishita (aged between 4 to 5 years) and Baby Rama Sri Vidya (aged less than 3 years).
5. Pending the OP, NVV filed I.A.No.91 of 2019 under Section 26 of the Act for custody of both the children every week and during school holidays.
6. Though a counter affidavit was filed by SS in the Court below opposing the grant of above relief to NVV, during the course of hearing of the IA No.90 of 2019, SS, through her counsel stated that she had no objection if the custody of the children is given to NVV on every Sunday from 8 AM to 6 PM.
The order of the trial court in IA No.91 of 2019
7. In the order dt.23.12.2019 in I.A.No.91 of 2019, the Court below took note of the contentions of the parties and the legal position relating to grant of visitation rights and held that the children ought to get the love and affection of both parents. It therefore granted custody of the elder child Baby Rishita to NVV on every Saturday from Friday 5 PM to Monday 10 AM; and also granted custody of the younger child Baby Rama Sri Vidya on every Sunday from 9 AM to 6 PM to him until further orders. It directed that NVV shall pick up and drop off the children as per the above schedule.
8. It is not in dispute that the NVV had availed visitation rights of the elder child on every week end from Saturday evening to Sunday evening and during summer vacation as per orders of the High Court in W.P.No.10142 of 2019, which has since been disposed of.
CRP No.360 of 2020
9. In CRP No.360 of 2020 filed on 05.02.2020 against the order of the Court below, NVV seeks modification of the said order and seeks (a) permission to take both children at the same time and for the same duration and (b) for custody of the both children during summer holidays of the children also.
10. In CRP.No.360 of 2020, notice was ordered to SS on 14.02.2020. She received the notice and engaged Ms. S.Vani who entered Vakalat on 25.02.2020.
11. Thereafter, on 07.04.2020, I.A.No.3 of 2020 was filed by NVV alleging that SS did not allow NVV to pick up the elder child on 03.04.2020 on the pretext of Corona Virus situation and adamantly refused to comply with the order passed by the Court below.
12. Counsel for NVV also placed before the Court the legal notice dt.04.04.2020 issued by SS’s counsel to him and his response dt.14.04.2020 thereto through a Memo dt.24.04.2020.
13. When this IA was listed on 24.04.2020, counsel for the respondent sought time to file counter and on 27.4.2020 counter affidavit has been filed.
14. On 27.4.2020, detailed interim order was passed in IA No.3 of 2020 after hearing both sides and pending further orders, SS was directed to handover the two children by name Baby Rishita and Baby Rama Sri Vidya to NVV/his representative on 29.04.2020 at 10 AM and NVV was further directed to hand them over back to SS on 30.04.2020 by 10 AM; and the CRP No.360 of 2020 was directed to be listed on 1.5.2020.
15. This arrangement went smoothly without any hitch.
CRP.No.735 of 2020
1
