Disposed

Shiv Prakash Bansal v. Ankit Agarwal

Telangana HC11 Feb 2011CRP/925/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged a Family Court order directing parents to produce their minor grandchild before the court for ongoing guardian appointment proceedings. The High Court upheld an interim order, making it absolute to mandate child production as necessary during the trial.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 30-04-2010 is made absolute; petitioners are directed to produce the child before the Family Court as and when necessary for proceedings.

Shiv Prakash Bansal Vs Ankit Agarwal — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

C.R.P.No.925 OF 2010

¶6

Between:-

¶7

Shiva Prakash Bansal and others

…Petitioners

A n d

Ankit Agarwal

…Respondent

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.925 OF 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 01-02-2010 in I.A.No.1116 of 2009 in F.C.O.P.No.760 of 2009, on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein for return of the petition on the ground of want of jurisdiction, was dismissed, but, however, it was directed to bring the child Deepansha, aged 14 months, back to Hyderabad from Bangalore within a week.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

¶16

3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. Petitioner No.3 is the son of Petitioners 1 and 2. Petitioner No.4 is the wife of Petitioner No.3. It is stated

¶17

that the daughter of petitioners

¶18

1 and 2 was married to respondent and it was not a happy marriage and the daughter of petitioners 1 and 2 committed suicide. It is also stated that some criminal cases are also pending in that connection. O.P.No.760 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners for appointment of a guardian to the minor child, born to the daughter of petitioners

¶19

1 and 2 and the respondent, who is stated to be aged 14 months.

¶20

The petitioners filed I.A.No.1116 of 2009 seeking return of the petition on the point of jurisdiction. The respondent opposed the same. The learned Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application, holding that the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the O.P. While dismissing the petition, the Family Court further directed the petitioners to bring the child from Bangalore to Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present civil revision petition is filed.

¶21

4. By interim order dated 30-04-2010, this Court modified the impugned direction and directed the petitioners to produce the child before the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad whenever the trial Court feels it necessary to produce the child and whenever the trial Court directs. It is stated that enquiry in O.P.No.760 of 2009 is in progress. When that is so, there cannot be any tenable objection for production of the child before the Court as and when directed by the learned Judge, Family Court.

¶22

5. In the circumstances, it is considered that no further orders need be passed in this civil revision petition, except

¶23

making the interim order dated 30-04-2010 absolute. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to produce the child before the Family Court, Hyderabad as and when the trial Court considers it necessary that the child be produced in connection with any proceedings.

¶24

6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

_____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶26

11^th February, 2011 Lrkm.

Shiv Prakash Bansal v. Ankit Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Prakash Bansal v. Ankit Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. K. Sri Rekha Vs K.Vijay Krishna,S/o.Dr.Brahmaji Rao,Private Service in Usa

Jasraj Purohit ( died ) per LRs Vs Jitender Jain

M/s. Wire and Cabnle (India) Pvt. LTd., Vs M/s. Controls and Schematics Ltd.

M/s/ Wire and Cable ( India ) Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s. Controls and Schematics Limited

The Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Vs Dy. Commissioner of Labour