Disposed

Jujjavarapu Rajendra Prasad, v. Jujjuvarapu Ujwala

Telangana HC11 Jun 2012CRP/797/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, this court directed the Family Court to dispose of a pending change of guardianship petition within six months and stayed execution of a divorce award until then, prioritizing child welfare over strict adherence to the award's placement terms.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of the pending change of guardianship petition within six months; stay of execution proceedings in the execution petition; mother retained weekly visitation right.

Jujjavarapu Rajendra Prasad, Vs Jujjuvarapu… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.797 OF 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.2.2010 passed in E.A.No.11 of 2010 in E.P.No.16 of 2009 in O.P.No.104 of 2005 by the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

¶4

Originally, the respondent herein filed OP No.104 of 2005 for divorce. The matter was settled before Lok Adalat and a consent award was passed granting divorce. Insofar as the minor child is concerned, it is agreed in the award that the said minor baby Swetha Bhargavi be joined in Sri Krishna Veni Talent School at Poranki, which is girls’ residential school and the baby shall not be shifted or taken out of the said school without consent of both parties and that the mother is given the right of taking out the baby from the school or hostel during the functions and festive occasions and during the holidays and in other days, the mother can also visit the minor baby at school or hostel and that if the mother is not able to take the minor girl on any such above occasions or holidays, due to inconvenience, the father can take the minor baby to his house in holidays with prior information to both sides.

¶5

As per terms of the award, both the parties went to Poranki to join the baby in Krishnaveni School, but the school authorities refused to give admission, as it was the middle of the academic year. Hence, the respondent-mother took the child to Guntur where she was residing. While so, the respondent filed E.P. on the ground that after passing the award, the Judgment debtor married another lady and took away the minor baby to his custody and admitted her in Gowtham Model School and thus, he failed to follow the terms and conditions of the award. Then, the petitioner filed EA No.11 of 2010 seeking stay of

¶6

all further proceedings in the E.P., on the ground that he filed another OP NO.553 of 2009 seeking change of Guardianship of the minor baby J. Swetha Bhargavi from the respondent to the petitioner.

¶7

The Court below having observed that it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Award passed by the Lok Adalat and unless it is set aside, the Court cannot stop the EP proceedings, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioner.

¶8

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶9

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the baby had heart problem and she underwent heart surgery at the tender age and that the respondent contacted another marriage and begot children and therefore, it is difficult for her to see the welfare of the baby and further, the baby does not want to join her mother and therefore, the petitioner filed the above OP for change of Guardianship and in the meantime, if the proceedings in the E.P. are not stalled, the welfare of the child will be at stake.

¶10

It is admitted fact that presently, the baby is in the custody of the petitioner. The E.P. proceedings and OP No.553 of 2009 filed by the petitioner herein are pending before the same Court. In the circumstances and in order to protect the welfare of the child, the Court below is directed to dispose of the OP No.553 of 2009, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the Court below shall not proceed with the E.P. proceedings, and the respondent has a right to visit the child once in a week.

¶11

With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

¶12

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

Dated: 11.6.2012 Nn

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶15

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.797 OF 2010

¶16

11.6.2012

¶17

Nn.

Jujjavarapu Rajendra Prasad, v. Jujjuvarapu Ujwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jujjavarapu Rajendra Prasad, v. Jujjuvarapu Ujwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inti Lakshmana Swamy Vs Pulakhandam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

Muvva Venkateswara Rao, Vs Kosuri Venkata Subba Rao

Inti Lakshmana Swamy Vs Pulakhandam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

Smt.Poojari Syamala Vs Poojari Somasundar

Y.Show Reddy, Vs Sri B.Arogya Reddy

Chittibomma Venkateswara Rao, Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt.Ltd.