Katta Krishna Saritha v. Kothapali Venkata Rathnam

Telangana HC21 Jul 2008WP/11489/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed the habeas corpus petition as admitted. Confirming the Family Court's weekly custody arrangement, the court directed the father to avoid inconveniencing the mother or child and seek prior intimation for visitation. Petitioners were advised to work out contingency plans regarding the father's potential US travel, with the court retaining the principle that spousal rights must

What the court decided

AI extract

Katta Krishna Saritha Vs Kothapali Venkata… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶4

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 11489 of 2008

¶6

Between: Katta Krishna Saritha, W/o. Kothapalli Venkata Rathnam, R/o. D.No. 54-1-19-1/3, Jayaprakash Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 Kothapali Venkata Rathnam, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, R/o. D.No. 19-94/1, Beside Panchayat Office, Yenamala Kuduru, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶10

2 Kothapali Swarna Kumari, W/o. Late Venkateswara Rao R/o. D.No. 19-94/1, Beside Panchayat Office, Yenamala Kuduru, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Kothapali Rammohan S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao R/o. D.No. 1 2-58/2, Near Auto Nagar, Bus Terminal, Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada-7, Krishna District.

¶11

4 The Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶12

5 The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of

¶15

writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the minor child by name Soumika Kothapalli before this Hon'ble Court and the said child may be handed over to the petitioner after declaring the custody of the child by the 1st respondent is illegal, and void and pass such other order or orders

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. C.PADMANABHA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, REPRESENTING MR.T.PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and

¶20

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.11489 of 2008

¶22

ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)

¶23

Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; as well as Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3; and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶24

2. The present Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner, who is

¶25

the mother of the minor child viz., Soumika Kothapalli, seeking to produce the child before this Court, who was in the custody of the first respondent-father of the child, and handover the custody of the child to her.

¶26

3. As per the directions of this Court, both the parties were reportedly present before the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, on 17-07-2008, for conciliation, but, no fruitful results were yield in. However, the matter has been posted to today and both the parties along with the child are present before this Court today.

¶27

4. Upon being questioned by this Court, both the parties stated that they have a consensus among themselves as regards the custody of the child; precisely as directed by the Court below.

¶28

5. The Court below i.e., Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, by order, dated 12-05-2008, in I.A.No.257 of 2008 in G.W.O.P.No.156 of 2008, directed that the child must be in the custody of the mother from Monday to Friday; and shall handover the custody of the child to the father on every Saturday at

¶29

8-00 a.m., who can have the custody of the child on Saturday and Sunday and shall handover the child to the custody of the mother at 8-00 a.m., on Monday.

¶30

6. Since, both the parties have agreed, in this regard, we confirm the said arrangement of the Court below. However, the father shall not exercise his right of visitation much to the inconvenience of the mother or the child and his visitation must be, preferably, with prior intimation to the mother. That apart, since the proceedings for divorce between the spouses are pending

¶31

before the Court below, we are not going to the other aspects.

¶32

7. However, since the father stated that, in all probability, he may have to go to United States of America, as he is a Green Card holder, the arrangement suggested by the Court below and as confirmed by this Court, may not work out.

¶33

8. Again, upon being questioned by this Court, both the parties stated that they will work out on their own about the custody of the child in the above said contingency. When both the parties have agreed to workout the other ways and means as regards the custody of the child and also the visitation right by the father, we do not propose to add anything more and we only leave the matter, particularly as regards the visiting rights of the father, to the wisdom of the spouses. But, we are very much clear that the rights of the spouses shall not be exercised in such a way to take away the rights of the child.

¶34

9. With the above word of caution, observations and directions, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

_______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 21-07-2008. Msr.

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station,

¶41

Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶42

2 The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station,

¶43

Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶44

3. Two CCs to Advocate General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶45

4. Two C.D. copies.

¶46

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶47

WRIT PETITION No.11489 of 2008

¶48

21-07-2008

¶49

(Msr)

Katta Krishna Saritha v. Kothapali Venkata Rathnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Katta Krishna Saritha v. Kothapali Venkata Rathnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleha, Hyderabad. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Police

T. Rajendra Prasad, Vs The Station House Officer, Tanakallu Police Station

Narayana, Sy.No. 153, 154 Koheda Village, Vs The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar, Dilsukhnagar

B. Shobha Rani Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary

B.Laxmi Vs The Superintendent of Police,Karimnagar

Arjala Satyavathi Vs The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station