Disposed

Dr. C. Anjaneyulu v. Dr. C. Srujana

Telangana HC1 Nov 2012CRP/2836/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition regarding custody and visitation rights, the High Court confirmed the Family Court's order but directed the petitioner to approach the Family Court for visitation rights, which would be decided expeditiously on specific timelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner relegated to Family Court to file application for visitation rights; Family Court directed to decide within four weeks.

Dr. C. Anjaneyulu Vs Dr. C. Srujana — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBEROCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2836 of 2012

¶6

BETWEEN Dr. C.V. Anjaneyulu. AND Dr. C. Sujana.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

...RESPONDENT

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. VIKRAM RAGI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. M.A.K.MUKHEED The Court made the following:

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This revision is directed against the order of the Family Court dated 15.05.2012 whereunder the petitioner’s application I.A.No.813 of 2011 for interim custody of minor children was rejected after considering the facts and circumstances as well as after interviewing the children in the chambers.

¶12

2. Though the revision petition is directed against the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that, as at present, petitioner is not interested in pressing for interim custody but he seeks appropriate relief with respect to visitation rights, so that he can have custody of the children

¶13

during visitation.

¶14

3. Though the learned counsel confines the relief to visitation rights, the same was never sought for before the Family Court and in view of the request made now, I deem it appropriate to confirm the order impugned by relegating the petitioner to the Family Court, particularly, as the learned Family Judge has already interviewed the children, on the following conditions:

¶15

1. Petitioner is given liberty to approach the Family Court by making appropriate application seeking visitation rights;

¶16

2. If such application is made, learned counsel for the respondent shall undertake to file counter within three (3) weeks of service of such application;

¶17

3. The Family Court shall, thereafter, decide the said application expeditiously within a period of four (4) weeks and pass appropriate orders.

¶18

The civil revision petition is disposed of. As a sequel,

¶19

the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶21

November 1, 2012 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 03.11.2012. (B/o) DSK

Dr. C. Anjaneyulu v. Dr. C. Srujana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. C. Anjaneyulu v. Dr. C. Srujana

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

Kancharla Ram Reddy Vs Kachavarapu Pushpavathi

Y.M. Subba Rao, Vs G.Venkamma , Kamaladevi

H.Naga Raju, Vs M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited, Kurnool

Ms.Sahara India Commerdal Corporation Ltd. Vs Ms.Sahara States Owners Welfare Association

Jakka Venkata Subbarayudu Vs S.Venkata Rami Reddy

L.Krupavathamma Vs Bhogireddy Veera naga Pothu Raju