The High Court · 2025

'tI{E HONOTIR{BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENTIKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.9l6 of 2021 ORI)EIt: I{eard Sri Kamtala Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sli Yarra Prakash, leamed counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Ilevision Petition is tiled challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Famity Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, ('Famity Court'), in I.A.No. 1507 of 2023 in G.W.O.P.No.42 of 202:i

3. []rief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed C.W.O.P.No.42 of 2023 before the Familv Court under Sections 7 to l0 and l5 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and Section 6 of'the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking relief ol modillcation of order dated 12.10.2022, which was passed by the Farnily Court in F.C.O.1'].No.520 of 2022 with respect to the visitation rights. The I.A. under revision was flled under Section l5l of C.P.C. firr a direction to allow thc revisiorr petitioner to see his minor daughter on tlrst and third week fbr eight hours on Sunday and one full day and night for second and tburrh week Sunday or any other day of the every month while not ,l \=' - RY.J cRI' 916 2024 disturbing the study of the minor child and during the pendency of the disposal of the G.W.O.P.

4. The marriage of the revision petitioner and the resfondent was held on 10.05.2015 at KBR Convention, [-.B.Nagar, Ilyderbad, and they were blessed with baby girl on 06.05.2017. Due to differences they agreed for mutual consent divorce and divorce decree dated 12.10.2022 was passed As per the terms and conditions agrced betu'een them at that time, the revision petitioner in a state of conlusion agrced to the condition that he would visit the minor child monthly once and the said visitation rights have been granted. The said term was consistent with the agreemenl ol both the parties. Subsequently, there was harassment by the respondent and hcr father using the minor child as pawn to win him over. Curently, the minor child is at crucial stage ofher tife. The respondent is under influence ofher father, who is employed in police department. The rninor child is suffering with parent alienation syndrome and the said situation is taken advantage to take revenge on the revision petitioner rather than to address the grievance. The parent alienation syndrome leads to psychological issues in adulthood The minor child lived with her f-ather and grandparents till she attained four ycars of age. Currently, there are difficult issues like passport with words 'divorced parents', blocking of phone number and misguiding the child that 2 RY.J cRP 916 2024 the phone is not working. The minor child is not getting a chance to live with hcr lather for over one and half years and the titne spent with her lbther has been decreased with almost negligible access. The minor child enjoys companl o1' her lather and more particularly painting along with him and the cornpany of the relations of patemal side. Due to minimal access, the chitd is getting no memories with her paternal relatives. The revision petitioner contends that he has right to spcnd quality with his rninor child. Fl:nce, the petition under revision is filecl seeking visitation rights over and above the terms of the consent divorce decree

5. The rcspondent opposed the petition stating that there was a mutual consent divorce on the agreed terms and conditions. The revision petitioner never took responsibility of the minor child and treated her as burdcn. The visitation rights are as per the terms ol thc agrecment i.e., once in a month as agreed by both the parties. There was six months time altcr ti ling petition fbr divorce and there were no force lul circumstances that caused confusion to the revision petitioner leading to take hasty decision. According to the respondent, the revision petitioner never showed any inclination to spend quality time with child or expressed his love and atfection. ln turn, the revision petitioner used to cause harassment to respondent and her family members. The respondt-nt's father issued 3 \' - RY,.I cR? 916 2024 notice of def'amation against the revision petitioner and gave statement before the concemed Court. On 15.08.2023, the revision petitioner took the rninor child away from visitation premises and sat on public road side bench followed by displaying a colour print of photograph of himself and the minor child mentioning 'miss u akshara' in botd and big letters, placed on colony center bench to attract public attention.. [n spite of resistance lrom the minor child, the revision petitioner was taking video of the caretaker threatening her to stay away or he witl drag her to Clourt. 'lhe revision petitioner started taking photos and videos of the caretaker in spitc of' her request to not to do so. She was cornpelled to dial l00i I 12 as the revision petitioner made scene by shouting in loud voice that it is injustice to separate father and daughter. After this incident, minor child got scared and is unwilling to meet the revision petitioner alone and is asking the nrother to stay by her side during the visitation time. I-he visitation is causing great inconvenience to respondent and her I'amily' rnembers. The revision petitioner is blaming the respondent by posting photos and videos on TV channels and instagram by showing the minor child as tool. 'fhe revision petitioner forcibly paid the school t-ees of the minor child and also took insurance for an amount of Rs.46,000/- without consent ofrespondent. The respondent repaid the said amount. 'fhe minor child is likely to suffer \great mental injury due to attitude of the revision petitioner telecasting her 4 I i I RY..I cRP 916 2024 photos and vidcos in TV channels and instagrarn. 'I'he minor child is unwilling to visit and spend time with the revision petitioner. It is the case of the respondcnl that the revision petitioner is not interested in rvelfare of the nrinor child. hut is interested in spreading false propaganda against her and therelbre. prayed to dismiss the present petition

6. The Famil-v" Court upon considering the case ol both the parties partll' allorved thc I.A. under revision and the revision petitioner is granted visitation tirne ol tour hours once in a month and the respondent is directed to givc thc datc-s and tirne of visitation l5 days in advance to the revision petition!-r. The rer ision petitioner is directed not to post any photos or videos ol the rninor child on any social media platforrn and that he shalt take the minor's photos/videos only if the child agrees. Aggrieved bv the sar.nc, the prescnl petition is preferred.

7. fhis Court has perused the entire record including the counter affidar it and citations submitted bv both the sides.

8. A perusal of thc record, more particularly order o1'the Family Court shorvs that the inrpugned order was passed after consulting the minor child in the charrrbers ol the presiding officer. During the said interaction of the rninor child witlr the presiding ofllcer, in the absence ol'hroth the revision petitioner as rve ll as the respondent, the child apparently expressed her 5 I l I - RY.J cRP 916 2024 displeasure with the behavior of the revision petitioner sitting in the middle of the road and taking her photos and videos without consent. Thc minor child wanted presence of her father on her birthday and.intended to play with hirn during her visits. Whereas, the rcvision petitioner was not present on her birthday though invited and did not show inclination to play games or paint with her during the visitation. Further, the child wanted the presence of respondent whenever she met the revision petitioner. Creating such a panic in the mind of the minor child is own mistake ol the revision petitioner. Had the revision petitioner exercised more restraint in his actions in the presence of the minor child, the child might not be afiaid ol hirn in the absence of her mother. It is the revision petitioner, who agreed tbr temrs of mutual consent divorce with visitation for once in a month. Ilaving agreed to such a term while passing of the decree with consent, it is unbccorning for the revision petitioner to scream on roads that injusticc is being meted out to him by separating father and daughter. There can be no circumstances of any force exerted by any party as both the rev r slon petitioner and the respondent are dental doctors, who are educated and sell rcliant. The revision petitioner cannot claim that in confused state of mind hc had agreed to tems of mutual consent divorce decree and therefbre, the same may be revised that too by making allegations against the respondent and her I'amily members. The visitation rights could have been incleased 6 , RY..I ct{P 916 2024 and the time period could have been increased, in case, the tninor child was inclined to spend time rvith her father without the presence of her mother. When the rninol child insists for the presence of her mother during visitation rights u'ith thc rcvision petitioner, the same causes inconvenience \. to the respondcnt-mother, rvho is also a doctor and who is busy in her own profession.

9. In view ot'the peculiar circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinirin that thc Family Court has considered all the aspects while passing the irnpugned order keeping the welfare of the minor child in vle w. 'fo surn up, the revision petitioner has only himself to blame for the panic created in the mind of the minor child with his uncontrolled behavior ol'yetting on the road and sitting in the middle of the road taking photos and videos of the rninor child and posting them on social media. The revision petitioncr has to improve his relationship with the minor child in the timc giverr and in future, the child may want to spend more time with him, w.hen shc clevelops rnore confidence in his behavior even without presence of the respondent or any other caretaker

10. ln vier.r, ol' the lbregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to grant any reliel- sought tbr by the revision petitioner. The present petition Iacks merits and the samc is Iiable to be dismissed. 1 .- RY.J cRP 916 2024 I I. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirnting the orderinl.A.No.l507 of 2023 inC.W.O.P.No.42of 2023 onthefileof the Family Court. There shatl be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, ifany, pending shall stand closed. SD/. A SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar 2 One CC to Sri Kamtala Krishna Kalyan, ROvocate-tOpUc; 9 9* 99 to Sri prakash y Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Coples A tsK/I'SI - w a HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012025 ORDER CRP.No.915 of 2t124 l ttE S TA 7'( o!r I J J \ -rr \.v \\: $ :) '.\ 0 [rI tui 3 l).,-sr. \-

1.r c'l!l DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS I I { o %