Point of Law :
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 itself prohibits publication or printing of any matter in relation to a proceeding under the said Act. If so, there is no necessity for the petitioner to produce proof of any such publication in contravention of Sub-Section (1) of Section 22 by the respondent to seek the interim relief of restraining the respondent from making any such publication in the Media, Print or Electronic or Social media, without the permission of the Court.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Art.227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dt.23.12.2019 in IA No.92 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.

2. The said HMOP was filed on 12.9.2019 by the petitioner in under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) alleging that the respondent 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 respondent in the OP till date.

4. The petitioner and the respondent have two minor children by name Baby Rishita (aged between 4 to 5 years) and Baby Rama Sri Vidya (aged less than 3 years).

IA No.91 of 2019

5. Pending the OP, petitioner 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 respondent in the Court below opposing the grant of above relief to petitioner, during the course of hearing of the IA No.90 of 2019, the respondent, through her counsel stated that she had no objection if the custody of the children is given to petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall pick up and drop off the children as per the above schedule.

I.A.No.92 of 2019

8. The petitioner filed I.A.No.92 of 2019 also on 12.09.2019 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking direction to the respondent not to divulge the contents of the proceedings pending in the Family Court or any material concerning the disputes between them without obtaining the specific leave of the said Court to any unauthorized third-party including the media.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner contended that since 20.04.2019 the respondent was living with her parents at Uppal in Hyderabad; that the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his parents with the Woman Police Station, Hyderabad making false allegations of demand of dowry and additional dowry and harassment; and that the complaint was registered as F.I.R.No.233 of 2019, for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 I.P.C. read with Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 27.04.2019. It is contended that since then the respondent was addressing the media exclusively with a view to malign the petitioner and his parents in public.

10. The petitioner contended that the respondent complained to the Child Welfare Commission that the two children who were in his custody were denied food milk and water and that they require protection and shelter; on the basis of the said false complaint, the officials of the Child Welfare Commission/Child Helpline visited petitioner’s house around 06:00 p.m. on 28.04.2019; that after interaction with the children, the petitioner and his parents, they were satisfied that the complaint of the respondent was without any merit.

11. It is contended that the respondents and her parents, relatives and other people hired by her resorted to a Dharna from 02:00 p.m. onwards in front of the petitioner’s house on 28.04.2019; and the media hired by them covered the Dharna from the beginning and by evening