The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. YEMMIGANUR SOMA SRINATH REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI BALA KRISHNA MANDAPATI l.A. NO.3 OF 2024 IN CIVIL R EVISION PETITION NO: 2312 0F 2024 Between: Dr. B. Privanka. Rlo. U. No. t-ZZ District, Telangana W/o opp M State D. Satish, Aged about 3 as; io, uriyip uil d"fi ft:,;;: il/ffi l';of .R,;r?:"ffi ? AND Rev. petitioner /pETITtONER Dubba Satish, S/o Late D i*l;,+lA#':i,i63rr11,t-ur{,t1:til:il,fj":f,,1i:,?iir uommunrty Hall Hyderabad- 5c0 038 IANO:3 OF 2024 *-a**DENT/ Respondent . Petition under Order +J.lu!e .t , R/w. Sec 151_of CpC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidav* fireo ," .ipp"i the petition, the High court may be preased to review the order o"t o zgtiitiozn prs."o in cRp No. 23.r2 0t 2024 and modify the same as ttris Hon Oie Cor;;-e"e?, fit and proper. C.R.P.No.2 312 ol 2024: "t Petition Under Articre 2 27 the constitution of rndia against the order dated 04-06-2024 in r.A.No. el ot zoii'ii-r:;.ffi:i: $2 ot 2o2son rhe fire or the court of the Judsie, ramiry court,'R;;;; ;IjilDistrict at Kukatpary IANo: 10F 2 24 -of Petition under section.151 cPC rraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suooort of the petiiio;,rir""Higi'court may be preased to direct the Respondents to oive tn".^.xc[sire"'*:i;#r#;n" ,younger oaughter n#ery Vivanshi who was bin on, tzrcan&i *J.i,,v,Jgeo aoout two years and 11 Months to the petitione-nd custoov ii "ii* i"rrni"r namerv Devanshi who was oresentrv's,,', ;" ;i;"'r:;;" i; the petitione r ti, d isposa r of ,x"Jl:l l', :l'J:?,],!r Counset for the petition".l:1._yFMMtcANUR oN BEHALF oF sRr ALLAM ruecanniu --, SOIllTA SRTNATH REDDY Counset for the Respondent: SRI BALA KRISHNA fr,lANDApATt THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.C No.605 OF 2025 & IA No.3 OF 2024 IN CRP No.23l2 of 2024 COMMON ORDER Heard Mr. Yemmiganur Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bala Krishna Mandapati, leamed counsel lor the respondent. Perused the record

2. The instant conternpt case has been filed alleging breach of the order dated, 29.11.2024 passed in C.R.P.No.23 12 of 2024. It is relevant to mention, at this juncture, that while atlowing C.R.P.No.23 12 of 2024. this Courr had made the following modihcation to the order dated 04.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.6l of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.532 of 2023 in thc 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 (motheo at the aforesaid location before 03:00 P M. itself enabling 2 the petilioner (mother) to have visitation rights from 03:00 P.fiil. to 08:00 l).lrl.; and (iv) The petitioner ernd respondent shall go to the above venue 316ns r^/ith 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 rs expected that the parents, i.e , the petitioner (mother) and the re-';pondent (fatheo, shall maintarn all decency and they shall not cause any embanassing situation at the venue"' It is this order which is seid to have been violated by the respondent. 3 . Today, when the mal.ter 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 contcntion of the petitioner is that the respondent is not bringing the children to the venue i.e., G.V.K.Malt, Barjara Hills, Hyderabacl where the visitation rights have been grrovided on every Sunday between 03:00 PM and 08:00 PM. On the contrary, the responclent contends that he has been visiting the said place as ordered b1' this Court without 6"r.,rlt and the othel side is making fatse accusation of l default on the part of the rcspondent. He lurther 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 ol 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 fi led 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., LA.No.3 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.2ll2 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 I -{E - !=:-,-:.--6 --:t:,=trJ.-.a'-/AffiEaiAae' )a 4 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 29.1I .2024 between 03:00 PM and 08:00 PM on att Sundays to ensure that the respondent-father shatl handover the child to the Advocate Commissioner, who, in turn, shall hand over the chitd 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 handcd over back to the Advocate Commissione r, who shall, in turn, hand over the chitdren to the respondent-father without fail' The Advocate Cornmissioner is also expecied to keep a watch as to whether both the applicant as well as the respondent. when thev visit the Matl whether they are coming alone or accompanied by some unwanted peopte atong with them. I i it is found so, he shall submit an appropriate report before this Court. The Advocate Commissioner shalt be paid an amount of lts.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per visit. The amount shall be bome 50% each by the applicant as 5 well as by the respondent and the fees shall be ensured to be paid on all the visiting days itself.

5. Today, the learned counsel appearing fbr the respondent submits that this Sunday i.e., 15.06.2025 there is a house warming ceremony at the house of the respondent and, therefore, there would be some difficulry for him to take the children to the Mall In view of the same, this Court directs that instead of 15.06.2025 this week, let visitation rights be availed by the applicant-mother tomorrow i.e., 14.05.2025 (Saturday). The respondent may make arrangements ln dropping the children to the Advocate Commissioner on 14.06.2025 at the given premises by 03:00 PM and take the children back after the visitation period at 08:00 PM.

6. The contempt case is, accordingly, disposed of. In the light of the disposal of the present contempt petition, this Court is of the clear opinion that no fufther case for any modification to the order dated 29.11.2024 is required. Hence, as of now, Review I.A.No.3 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.23l2 of 2024 also stands disposed of accordingly 6

7. The respondent shall not wait for the certified copy of the order for cornpliance since the respondent himself is present in the Court; this Courl sees no relson lor the appticant Ilot taking the chitd for visitation tomorro\'/ i'e, 14"06'2025 and every Sunday thereafter. There shall be no c'rder as to costs' Consequently, miscella'neous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To SD/. M DEFUTY OHD.ISMAIL REGISTRAR \ I I \l SECTION OFFICER ';frTi#ii,.s,5.EffT:ciffi ?,trx,1[iHftstffi lffill?" 2. The Judge, Family Court' R'anga Reddy District at Kukatpally 3. One CC to SRI YEMMIGANUR SOMA SRINATH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRI BALA KRISHNA MANDAPATI Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies W kul/PSl. ( I -l HIGH COURT DATED:1 3/06/2025 COMMON ORDER CC.No.605 ot 2025 AND e' AT S l:t ( o ') It])L CL }I t I I.A. NO.3 ()F 2024 rN C]RP NO. 2312 0F 2024 DISPOSING OF THI.], CONTEMPT CASE AND ALSO REVIEW I.A. N().3 OF 2024 IN CRP NO.23T2 OF 2024 \? 1P