The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. J. pradeep Kiran Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. C. Hari preeth CONTEMPT CASif lrl6.59 6 ot 2024 contempt case filed under section 10 ro 12 of corbmpt of courts Act to summon the reipondent herein and punish him for lvillful disobedience in complying the orr er dated 07 -02-2024 passed in C.R.p.No.2,342 ot 2O23. Between: ,l Sml. Dasari rrridhvi Ramana @ pridhvi Ramana Mu..hineni, Wo.Mr.Venkat Praveen Dase ri, Age: 32 years, Occ: Housewife, presentlv residino ai trei parents homrr: R/o H No 3-159i6/4, Nry?- !r.gq! Besirte S.V. .luniortotfege, Kodad Town & Mandal, Suryapet District-508206", T'S. . ...petitioner/Revision petitioner AND Venkat Praveen Dasari, S/o-.Nag_endra Babu Dasari, Age: 32 years, Occ: Bank !4-qla.g-er, Rt/c H.No.3-'12-122, -Ganesh Nagar, RamirtfrapJr, UyOeriUa6 _ 5000'13, TS. ...Res;pondenURespondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition unrler Section 151 cpc praying that in the ci.cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou 1 may oe pleaseJ to direct the responcent to forthwith produce the minorlhild namely Master Kautily; Karthikeyan (now aged about 5 years), before this Hororabre court and io handover the cusrody of the minor chitd to the petitioner. pending disposar of main Contempt C;rse, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couq 162, Ue pieaseJ pleased to dispen;e with the production of child as p-er orcrer dared 1s-o4-2o24 .. . -. t-.t:t-:-- ' &!"+,.: passed in lA.No.1 of 2024 in CC.No.596 ol 2024 till the hearing of the Contempt Appeal filed vide SR No.14391 of 2024 dated 16-04-2024 in the interest of iustice. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. J. Pradeep Kiran Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. C. Hari Preeth The Court made the following: ORDER , ./e THE I ION'BLE SRI JU STICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ( ONTEMPT APPEAL No.3 oF 202+ AND ( 'ONTEMPT CAS E No.596 OF 2024 COMMON JUD(;M ENT'. @er Hon'ble Sn.hsrice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.J.l'r'adeep Kiran, learned counsel lor the appeilant and M1 c.Hari Preeth, I':a.red counsel for the respondent. perrsed rhe material available on record.

2. During the c.:rse of deliberation the leamed counser lor the appellant brought to the nor ice of this Bench about the develDment that had transpired, at the llrst instance, when the matter wirs taken up for consideration on 03.'17.2027 by the Bench headed by the Flon,ble The chief Justice, the parties o I the said date, harl agreed upon the f(,llowinq terms of settlement: i Mrs. I)a;ari Pridhvi Ramana, mother of the r:hild shall harrd over the passport of the child I\{aster Kautilya Karthikeyan in the presence of Re;iistrar Judicial of this Coufi. Ihe Regisrrar Judicial is directed ,o keep the passport in a sealed cover in his custody.

2. 2. On fumishing of the passport to the Registrar Judicial of the Courl, Mr. Venkat Praveen Dasari shall hand over the custody of the child Master Kautilya Karthikeyan to Mrs. Dasari Pridhvi Ramana.

3. Mr. Venkat Praveen Dasari shall have right to visit the child and to spend time with the child namely Master Kautilya Karthikeyan on first and third Saturday of every month for an initial period of two months. Thereafter Mr. Venkat Praveen Dasari shall be entitled to approach this (jourt seeking extension of the visitation rights including ovemight stay during weekends of his son with him.

4. Master Kautilya Karthikeyan will prosecute his studies in Hyderabad only arid shall be not moved out of Hyderabad for the present.

3. Counsel for the appellant in the plcsence of the appellant in person had accepted the fact that the said terms of settlement has been honoured without any obstacle or hindrance

4. Thereafter the matter came up lor consideration again before the Bench headed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, on 19.09.2024, where again in addition to the terms of settlement recorded on 03.07.2024, the following terms were also agreed upon by both the parties which again for ready reference reproduced herein under: *" 7/ f' i. The respondent shall make a video call between 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.llt., on every Tuesday and 1-hursday so that Master Kautilya Karthikeyan can irlteract w th the appellant, who is his father; ii. The appellant shall be entitled to r;pend time vi,itlr Master Kautilya Karthikeyan 'on 2nd Saturday, 2nd Sunday and 4th Saturday of e'very month lbr initial period of two months. However. the prayer made by the appellant for initial period of two months. I lou,ever, the prayer made by the app-'llant fbr overni:lrt stay with his son during the weekends is delencd ll 'r lhe timc being. 5 . 'fhereafter th'r matter has come up for hearing today. Today also, the appellant in person along with his counsel so also the respondent in person along with her counsel were present beiore this Court

6. There are re(luests on either side. The appellant had sought for the modification of the :erms of settlement afore refemed to the extent that since the appellant is enjt,f ing the visitation tights on every second Saturday and the fourth Saturday of every month, let the appellant father norv have the privilege ofhaving he fortnight custody ofthe child on th: weekend that he gets the visitation rirrhts.

7. On the otheL hand, Ieamed counsel for the respondent wanted modification to th( extent of the duration ol the visita tton rights to be Page 4 ofB reduced from 10:00 a.m. till 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m., as 6:30 p.m. is too late in the evening and it alfects the dinner and feeding of the child.

8. This Bench mediated with the parties in the presence of the counsel appearing on either side and in the course of deliberation there was a consensus arrived at to modifo the earlier orders to the extent that henceforth the appellant shall have the right of visitation every week rather than on the sbcond and fourth rveeks that rvas earlier agreed upon. The respondent prayed that atleast once a month she has to visit here parental home and she takes the child along with her and therefore on the Sundays when she may go to her parental home it would be difficult for her to make available the child to the appellant father.

9. Again on deliberation, it was agreed upon by the parties that in order to ensure compliance of the visitation right of every weekend, since the appellant father has an off on the second Saturday and fourth Saturday, he may have the visitation right on those two Saturdays of a month so that the second and fourth Sundays, the child can be available with the respondent mother. Likewise, on these Sundays, i.e., second and fourth Sundays, if the mother wants she may visit along with the child to her parental home which would not disturb the visitation right of the appellant father. Likewise, the appellant shall also have the visitation right on the first and third Sundays on 7 which day he may have the custody of the child during, the moming till evening as agreed u ron on the earlier dates ofhearing

10. As regards th-'reducing of the duration of visitation rrights, taking into consideration the oiriections and the contentions which tlrc respondent has raised, we do not find it to be too strong and compt:lling, warranting interference with th,'timing agreed upon on the previous ditte of hearing. We are also of the opir ion that 6:30 p.m. cannot be said to be too late in the ev.ening which cou d affect leeding time or the dinner time of the child particularly since he is a school going cf;ild. I 1. Accordingly, thc lirllowing new terms of settlement has been agreed upon by the parties: l. The apncllant shall have the visitation rights cn the 2nd ano 4tr' Saturdays and also l't and 3'd Sultdays of ever "' nronth

2. So far as the timing of the vlsrtatlon right 1S concenred, the same shall remain unchangerl i.e., from lrr.00 AM to 6.30 PM.

3. The sard settlement is in modihcation to the earlier settlem--nt those have been arrived at in the c curse !rl--r,: Page 5 of9 of appeal being heard by this High Court on earlier dates of hearing.

4. So far as request of the appellant for having visitation right for a ovemight stay of the child with the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that let the present arrangements that have been arrived at continue for some time and if everything works out smoothly, the appellant would be free to move .appropriate application before the concemed family court seized of G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2022 in respect of the said relief.

5. There would also be the liberty to the parties as well, to approach the concerned flamily court for any further modifications, if required, or for any further conditions and clarification, if required, so far as the visitation rights that have been agreed upon between the parties today.

12. Since there is consensus arrived at between the parties so far as the visitation right of the child is concemed, we do not find any further good reasons for keeping the inslanf contempt appe"t p"na-ii! so also it was pa8e 7 of 9 agreed by the partiei that the original contempt case also carr be closed in the light ofthe developrnent that have taken place pending the appeal before this Bench. Accordingtl . the contempt appeal stands disposed of in terms of the observations made n the preceding paragraphs reserving..he liberty as said in the preceding parrrgraphs to either of the parties. Contempt Case No 596 of 2024

13. In the light o'the disposal of the Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2025 in tertns of the agreed'cnns of thc right to visitation between the parties so lar as the visiting the c hild is concemed, the parties in the (lontempt Appeal have also agreed thrrt in the light of the disposal of the ()ontempt Appeal No.3 of 2025, nothirrg would survive in the Contempt Cast: No.596 of 2024 also. Therefore, the said conternpt case No.596 of 2024 c.n also be closed. It was in this contex that this Bench had called for taking up the Contempt Case No.596 of 2O2a along wirh the present Contempt Appt:al No.3 of 2025.

14. Therefore, in t re light ol-the disposal of the Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2025 on the agreed lemrs of the right to visitation, nothing further survives in Contempt Case No.596 of 2024. The Contempt Case 1,1o.596 of 2024 accordingly stands cl:sed and the respondents therein stand discharged from t I contempt proceeding.;. I I

15. Further, this court while passing the docket order dated 03.07.2024 in Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2024, had put a condition that the respondent shall hand over the passport of the child to the Registry of the High Court, now that the proceedings before this High Court getting disposed of, we are directing the Registry to transfer the said passport to the concerned family court. The family court in tum seized of the G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2022 is further directed to ensure that the said passport of the child be ordered to be k;pt in the safe custody of the administrative officer of the said court till the pendency of the G.W.O.P or until furthei orders passed by the family court.

16. In the result, the Contempt Appeal stands disposed ol and the Contempt Case stands closed as above. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Registrar (Judicial), High Court for the State of 2. The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - ngana at Hyderabad. Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at KukatPallY.

3. The Section Officer, O.S Section, High Court for the S tate of Telangana at Hyderabad.

4. One CC to Mr. J. Pradeep Kiran, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to Mr. C. Hari Preeth, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies kam/DL HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 I COMMON JUDGMENT CONTEMPT APPEAL.No.3 ot 2024 AND CONTEMPT CASE No.596 of 2024 :1'' .:l ../' (-' HE Sl4 2'l APfl 2U5 a.\(" I: t, , /; .i. .t: f -) (')/. i, \, DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMP APPEAL CLOSING THE CONTEMP'I- CASE I I i, I I