SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ninala Jayasurya, J
P.Uday Kumar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
A.Vineela – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3188 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bala Krishna Mandapati
For the Respondents: VMR Legal

In visitation disputes, the welfare of the child is paramount. While the child's opinion is relevant, the court must ensure the child is not tutored or influenced by a parent to deprive the other parent of their affection.

Headnote:The petitioner filed an application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking visitation rights for three minor children during the pendency of a dissolution of marriage proceeding filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The lower court denied the visitation rights after interacting with the eldest child, while granting liberty to file a fresh petition after six months. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the children are entitled to the affection of both parents and that the child may have been tutored. The primary issue is whether the denial of visitation rights based on the opinion of a child is sustainable without ensuring the child is not under parental influence. The court reasoned that while the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and the child's opinion must be taken into account, the court must ensure that the child is not under the influence of the parents. It held that serious disputes in a matrimonial matter cannot lead to the deprivation of love and affection from either parent. With the above modification, the Revision Petition is disposed of.

Orders Reserved on : 27.02.2026

Orders Pronounced on : 06.05 20 .2 2 0 6 2 :A 6 PHC:19370

Orders Uploaded on : 06.05.2026

APHC010615722025

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

The Court made the following Order:

The present Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 28.10.2025 in I.A.No.621 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.106 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Tirupati.

The respondent herein filed the H.M.O.P., under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner / husband is contesting the same by filing counter. During the pendency of the O.P., the petitioner filed the above said I.A., under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking visitation rights to meet the minor children, born out of the wedlock i.e., two daughters, aged about 10 years & 5 years respectively and a son aged about 3 years. The respondent / wife resisted the said application by filing a counter.

The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) taking into consideration the submissions of both sides and interaction with the elder child, was not inclined to grant visitation rights.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the material on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner made detailed submissions with reference to the various grounds raised in the Memorandum of Revision Petition to impress upon the Court that the order under challenge is not sustainable. It is his main contention that the children are entitled to warmth and affection of both the parents for their overall well being and denial of the same would have an adverse impact on their overall development. He submits that denial of the visitation rights by taking into account the opinion of the elder child, in the absence of any other evidence, is not sustainable, that the possibility of the child being tutored against the petitioner / father was not appreciated. He further submits that the rights of the minor children cannot be simply scuttled away and as a result of the same, the memories of the father may be erased. He also submits that even the direction dated 11.09.2025 in I.A.No.621 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.108 of 2025, permitting the petitioner / father to interact with the children telephonically / by video calls once in a week was not obeyed by the respondent. He placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan and Others , (2020) 3 SCC 67. He also submits that both the parents i.e., the petitioner and the respondent stay in Tirupati and seeks appropriate directions by setting aside the order under challenge.

The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, made submissions to the effect that the impugned order contains cogent reasons, passed in the best interest of the children and therefore, calls for no interference. The learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gayatri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla , (2012) 12 SCC 471 and seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition.

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

At the outset, it may be pertinent to note that though vide impugned order I.A., in question was dismissed, however liberty was afforded to the petitioner to seek appropriate modification or renewal of visitation rights at a later stage, upon establishing changed circumstances. As per the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition seeking visitation rights after a period of six months. Under the said circumstances, this Court, deems it not necessary to examine the matter at length. However, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be simply ignored. As is evident from the order under revision, the learned Senior Ci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top