THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.C No.605 OF 2025 &

IA No.3 OF 2024 IN CRP No.2312 of 2024

COMMON ORDER

:

Heard Mr. Yemmiganur Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bala Krishna Mandapati, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant contempt case has been filed alleging breach of the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in C.R.P.No.2312 of 2024. It is relevant to mention, at this juncture, that while allowing C.R.P.No.2312 of 2024, this Court had made the following modification to the order dated 04.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.61 of

2024 in F.C.O.P.No.532 of 2023 in the following manner:

“(i) Visitation rights shall be available to the petitioner (mother) on every Sunday of the month from 03:00 P.M. to 08:00 P.M;

(ii) The venue of the visitation would be GVK Mall, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad;

(iii) The respondent (father) shall handover the two minor children to the petitioner (mother) at the aforesaid location before 03:00 P.M. itself enabling the petitioner (mother) to have visitation rights from

03:00 P.M. to 08:00 P.M.; and (iv) The petitioner and respondent shall go to the above venue alone with the two minor children, and they shall not take along any other person without leave of this Court.

It is further clarified that since the venue has been fixed at a public place mentioned above, it is expected that the parents, i.e., the petitioner (mother) and the respondent (father), shall maintain all decency and they shall not cause any embarrassing situation at the venue”.

It is this order which is said to have been violated by the respondent.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the respondent is present in person. Both sides make an allegation that the other party is in default, inasmuch as the contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is not bringing the children to the venue i.e., G.V.K.Mall, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad where the visitation rights have been provided on every Sunday between 03:00 PM and 08:00 PM. On the contrary, the respondent contends that he has been visiting the said place as ordered by this Court without default and the other side is making false accusation of default on the part of the respondent. He further accuses that the when the applicant visits G.V.K. Mall in the capacity of mother, she is accompanied not only her Lawyer but also some goons along with her to put undue pressure upon the respondent. For the last couple of months, this Bench has been witnessing frequent litigations inter se between the applicant and the respondent on various counts on the same issue relating to the custody of the children. There were habeas corpus petitions filed in this Court which were decided.

4. Today, considering the nature of accusations being made on either side, this Court is inclined to pass an order in the instant contempt petition along with a pending review petition i.e., I.A.No.3 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.2312 of 2024 which is also listed today and which is being decided along with the present contempt petition. In order to ensure that the order of this Court dated 29.11.2024 is implemented in its letter and spirit, this Court is constrained to appoint Mr. Mohammed Absar Ahmed, Advocate (Mobile No.88973 06330), who is present in the Court, as an Advocate Commissioner. The parties have agreed to pay a fee of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per visit to the Advocate- Commissioner. The Advocate-Commissioner shall be present at the premises mentioned in the order dated 29.11.2024 between 03:00 PM and 08:00 PM on all Sundays to ensure that the respondent-father shall handover the child to the Advocate Commissioner, who, in turn, shall hand over the child to the applicant-mother for the period between 03:00 PM and 08:00 PM. That immediately after the visitation time is over, the applicant- mother is directed to ensure that the child is handed over back to the Advocate Commissioner, who shall, in turn, hand over the children to the respond