The High Court · 2025

Smt. SMRITI SINGH, D/o Shi Ram-Kumar Singh, Aged about 37 yrs., Occ Private,Emptoyee, R/o Flat ryg..109, Btock-E,-SRCISTi Uema Orlrg; Shrv Hills,. Narsingi-Pgpp?lgguOa Main Road, Ranga Reddy District 5"00 O8g Email: singhsmriti1'1 1 @gmail.com ...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT Petition under section 'r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 2l -03-2025 which was frauclulen y procured by the petitioner through deliberate suppression of material facts and records from this court while willfully continuing to disobey binding visitation orders even after the pronouncement of orders in CC NO 235012023. Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B SUBASH The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY - AND THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSII7/ The instant Contempt Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, lg7 | assailing the order dated 2O.O2.2O25 in C.C.No.2350 of 2023 passed by . learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Heard Ms.B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of appellant; and Mr.B. Subash, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Vide order dated 20.02.2025 in c.c.No.2350 0f 2023, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the contempt case by holding the appellant guilty of contempt of order dated O4.O3.2O22 in Civil Revision Petition No.291 of 2022 passed by this Court and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- for each violation committed by the appellant from 26.O2.2O23 onwards.

4. For properly appreciating the dispute and the core issue involved in the instant appeal, it would be more appropriate if we look into the order which was originally passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.29l of 2O22, dated O4.O3.2O22. For ready reference, the - operative portion of the order is extracted as under, viz., "ln this case, it b to be seen that alreadg the respondent-father is bnjoging the online ui,sitation rights on euery Sundag between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 lloon, bg uirtue of the order dated.30.11.2020 in I.A.No.9B1 of 2020. Insofar as phgsical uisitqtion rights granted in 1.A.No.3645 of 2021 is concerned, the Court below granted phgsical uisitation ights to the father on euery working Monday and Wednesdag between 03:0O P.M. to 05:OO P.M. at Familg Court premises, Ranga Reddg Distnct, wheneuer he comes to India, which mag affect the education of the bog as the bog attends the school on tLrc aboue said days. Therezfore, it is not aduisable to grant ubitation rights to the father on tuorking dags. In uiew of the same, the order of the Court belou in I.A.No.364S of 2O21, datetd O7.01.2022, i"s modifted and the respondent / father is granted phgsical utsitation rights of his minor son bg name Regansh on euery working Safirdag between O1:OO P.M. to 05:O0 P.M. uheneuer the respondent / father comes to India. wh.eneuer he is in Netherlands, the respondent / father can haue uisitation rights of the child through uideo-confererucing (on-tine) as ordered bg the Court below in I.A.No.98l of 2O2O, dated 30.11.2020. Accordinglg, the Ciuil Reuision Petition is disposed of. No order as fo costs. "

5. Alleging willful non-compliance and disobedience of the above order, the respondent (husband) herein filed Contempt Case No.2350 of 2023. vide order dated 2o.o2.2o25 in Contempt Case No.235o of 2023, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said Contempt Case and held the appellant (wife) herein guilty of contempt of court under Sections l0 to 12 of the contempt of courts Act, 1971, at paragraph Nos.23 and 25 as under, viz., "23. Thus, in this Contempt Petition, this Court cannot trauel begond 'the four corrlers of the order alleged to tnue Jlouted. As the report of the Aduocate-Commi"ssioner is supporting the contentions of the petittoner and his counsel about ttrc uiolations committed by the respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to punish the respondent under Secfions 1O to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for uiolation of orders of this Court and direct her to paA an amount of Rs.2,000/ - for each uiolation committed bg her on the aboue dates from 26.O2.2023 onwards to till date. The respondenf is also directed to furnish a bond of Rs.2,OO,OOO/- in fauour of Regi"strar (Judicial) of this Court as secuity for fufire compliance of the orders of this Court within a period of four (O4) weelcs from the date of receipt of a copg of this order. If she faiLs to complg the same, she is liable to be punished with simple imprisonment for a period of six montls.

24. In the result, ttle Contempt Case is allowed lnlding the respondent guiltg of tLrc contempt of the orders of this Court and directing her to paA an amount of Rs.2,OO0/- for each uiolation committed bg her on the aboue dates from 26.02.2023 onward.s to tilt date. As the report of ttrc Aduocate-Commissioner would disclose that more than 6O sessions were conducted till date, the respond.ent- contemnor b directed to pay an amnunf of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Tutentg Thousand)for uiolating the orders passed bg thi.s Court and the respondent is abo directed to furnbh a bond of Rs.2,OO,)OO in fauour of Registrar (JudiciaU of this Court as securitg for future compliance of the orders of this Court uithin a period of four (O4) weelcs from the date of receipt of a copg of this order. If she fails to complg *Le same, she r.rs liable to be punisLrcd with simple imprisonment for a period of six months."

6. Aggrieved, the instant contempt Appeal has been filed by the appellant (wife).

7. Learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the chart reflecting the details of on-line and physical visitation rights on the various dates and contended that the said details itself would show that there was no willful disobedience on the part of appellant as regards the order passed by the learned Singte Judge in contempt case No.2350 of 2023, dated 2o.o2.2o2s. she further contended that it was due to verbal abuse and mannerism under which the respondent was behaving had caused great inconvenience to the child, and which had made the child reluctant to cooperate with the respondent during visitation mostly because of abnormal attitude and behavior on the part of respondent. She further contended that respondent (husband) had been filing numerous applications to create undue pressure and to complicate the life of appellant, and to also ensure that the appellant do not have a peaceful life and to grapple with series of court proceedings and cases instituted by the respondent. She further contended that the respondent had been making obnoxious allegations and contentions against the appellant, and had been maligning the image of appellant at every forum only with an intention to tarnish the image of appellant and to bring destruction to him, and therefore contended that the ,,, 1i / contempt proceedings was initiated by the respondent only with the - aforesaid motive.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the above contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that it was in fact the appellant who is creating aI[ sorts of hurdles in the course of respondent availing visitation rights; the appellant had been always non-cooperative in the course of availing visitation right by the respondent; and the appellant used to poison the mind of child against respondent as and when respondent wanted to avail visitation right.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the visitation time was the only occasion where the respondent was having access to speak to the child, and the visitation right was getting hampered because of adverse conduct on the part of appellant which led to filing of instant contempt case before this Court; the learned Single Judge which is seized of the contempt proceedings found the appellant herein guilty and passed orders after thorough verification and enquiry of the facts and circumstances of case; and therefore, prayed that the order under challenge in the instant appeal does not warrant any interference by this Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 197 L and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. \

10. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the records, what needs to be appreciated from the facts narrated above is that the learned Single Judge of this High Court had passed order in Civil Revision Petition No.291 of 2022, dated O4.O3.2O22, after considering the difficulties that were faced by the parties during on-line visitation, physically as well as virtually, on every working Monday and Wednesday between 03:OO P.M. till 05:00 P.M. at the premises of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. The greatest inconvenience was to the child whose studies would have got affected. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that, since it is the respondent-father who had already been enjoying on-line visitation rights on every Sunday between 1 1:00 a.m to 12:00 noon by virtue of the order dated 30.11.2O2O in I.A.No.981 of 2O2O, modified t-he earlier order and granted physical visitation rights to the respondent-father on every working Saturday between 01:OO P.M. to O5:00 P.M., as and when he was available in India; and whenever the respondent-father was out of [ndia, the visitation rights was fixed through video-conferencing as per the earlier order dated

30.11.2020 in I.A.No.981 of 2O2O where the visitation rights were granted to the respondent-father on every Sunday between 11:00 A.M. to 12:OO P.M.

11. It appears that from the contentions put forth on either side and from a perusal of the pleadings that a-re attached to the present Contempt Appeal, the fight between the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) and the differences that cropped up between the two are creating problems in the course of execution of impugned order under challenge in its proper perspective. Another aspect which is revealed from the submissions made by learned counsel on either side is that there is a blame put on either side so far as interfering with the system on which they were having, i.e., the video- conferencing facility which is causing abrupt interruptions to the visitation right. The instant appeal and the contempt proceedings revolve around visitation right of the respondent-father with the child. It is the welfare of the child which is paramount so far as the court is concerned and at the s€une time what also has to be borne in mind is that there should not be a situation created by either of spouses which would sever the relationship of either of them L2. Therefore, this Bench is of tJ'e opinion that, in the factual backdrop of the case so as to strike a balance between welfare of the child and also the relationship between either of the spouses with the child, ends of justice would be met if the visitation right which was otherwise granted by the Tria1 Court vide dated 3O.11.2O2O in I.A.No.98l of 2O2O can be modilied in the following marrrrer, viz., (i) Firstly, there shall be only visitation right available with the respondent-father with the child on every Saturday instead of on Saturdays and Sundays The timing of the visitation shall be on every Saturday of the month except second Saturday. The timing of visitation right would be between O2:30 P.M" to O5:30 P.M. The venue for the visitation right shall be the video-conference room located in the office of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, High Court Premises, Hyderabad. The visitation right shall be under the supervision of the Administrative Officer or any other officer of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority in the absence of Administrative Officer During the proceedings of Video-Conferencing, the appellant (wife) shall not be permitted to remain in the Video-Clonferencing room, but she may be entitled to remain in the premises of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority. The Administrative Officer of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority shall make all necessary arrangements in this regard.

13. During the course of hearing to-day, we had asked the learned counsel for the appellant whether the respondent (husband) has a plan to visit Hyderabad so as to consider his request for physical visitation right that he intends to avail. Upon speaking to the respondent (husband), learned counsel for the appellant (wife) submitted that as per the version of respondent (husband) for the next eight to ten months he would not be able to leave Patna where he resides as he has to take care of many things at the domestic front on account of recent passing away of his father. Therefore, as of now, this Court is not making any observation so far as availment of physical visitation by the respondent (husband) is concerned. However, as and when the respondent (husband) wants to have a physical visitation he may do so by moving an appropriate application before the concerned Family Court where the GWOP.No.27 of 2O2O is pending between the parties. Upon such filing €rn appropriate application before the concerned Family Court, the concerned Family Court may consider the same as has been done in the instant Contempt Appeal and choose an entirely different location for granting ! physical visitation right to the respondent (husbmd); and if required, the video-conference room located in the office of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, High Court Premises, Hyderabad, c€u1 be used for the sarne. t4' with the erforesaid observations and directions, and considering the peculiar factuar backdrop under which the contempt proceedings stood initiated and decided, we do not want to precipitate the matter further except by strictly imposing the conditions put forth by the learned single Judge uide order dated 2o.o2.2o25 in c.c.No.235o of 2023- Accordingry, the order dated 2o.o2.2o2s in c.c.No.235o of 2023 passed by the learned single Judge of this court is set aside. The contempt Appeal stands alrowed. No costs.

15. Miscellaneous petitions, pencling if any, shar stand closed. //TRUE COPYII sD/- e.v.s.s.c.s.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,, ; il:ff:,'#rlJudiciar)' "['ft']##iH{i:ffi Hish courr ror the state or rerangana, Hyderabad t I I a if,,f,sn+:trs';11}:tr;;,',"rmtr$":r[)r,., ffi&".tH"%s,:?.";iginar side Section, Hish court for the stare of

4. One CC to SRI. BoKARo SAPNA s one c*o sRr B suBASH oo,"..ll::::i'".ate ropUcl 6. Two CD Copies 3' TPK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 JUDGMENT CA.No.3 of 2025 THE: {; () * 0 3 Ul:[ ?A?\ -J., {:: :.., CONTEMPT APPEAL IS ALLOWED