Partly allowed

Gurramula Shivaram, v. Gurramula Mamatha

Telangana HC20 Sept 2014CRP/5242/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld visitation rights granted by the Family Court but modified the venue from a school to the maternal grandmother's house to foster a parent-child bond, allowing 3 hours of contact on Sundays.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's visitation rights are modified to be exercised at the maternal grandmother's house every Sunday between 10:00 am and 1:00 pm.

Gurramula Shivaram, Vs Gurramula Mamatha — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5242 of 2013

¶3

Date: September 20, 2014

¶4

Between: Gurramula Shivaram. … Petitioner and

¶5

Gurramula Mamatha. … Respondent

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5242 of 2013

¶9

O R D E R:

¶10

This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Warangal, in I.A.No.131 of 2013 in O.P.No.114 of 2013.

¶11

2. The subject petition was filed by the petitioner father for interim custody of the children. The children in question are aged about 7 years and 5 ½ years respectively. By the order dated 17.10.2013, the Court below denied the relief of interim custody to the father but permitted him visitation rights to the extent of meeting his children in the school once in a week, i.e., on Saturdays, during the lunch hour with the permission of the Principal/Headmaster of the school. The Principal was also asked to remain present during the meeting. Aggrieved thereby, the father filed this revision petition.

¶12

3. Notice having been ordered to the respondent-mother, Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel, entered appearance on her behalf.

¶13

4. The main O.P. was filed for a divorce and is still pending consideration before the Family Court, Warangal. At this stage, the issue was only limited to the question of the interim custody of the children. The children seem to have been with the mother all through. The Family Court, taking note of the children’s feelings against the father, denied him interim custody but permitted him the right of visitation. The paramount consideration that would weigh with the Court while dealing with a custody battle, as in the present case, would be the interests of the children. Whatever be the disputes between the parents, the children have a right to receive the love and affection of both. Exclusion of one parent’s love and affection at this tender age would be detrimental to the proper development and growth of a child. The children would therefore have to be exposed to both parents, despite their differences inter se.

¶14

5. This Court therefore confirms the order of the Family Court bestowing visitation rights upon the father. However, the mode and methodology of implementing such visitation rights adopted by the Family Court, Warangal, warrants interference. Meeting the children in the school on a Saturday and at that, in the presence of the Principal, would not allow any opportunity for the father to interact or bond with his children. The children would necessarily have to be in a comfortable, conducive and familiar atmosphere for them to be receptive to the advances of the father who appears to be, more or less, a stranger to them. This Court therefore called upon the learned counsel for the parties to suggest any other venue where the visitation rights could be put into effect.

¶15

6. Today, the learned counsel suggested that the visitation may be permitted at the house of the maternal grandmother of the children on Sundays. Accepting the same, the order under revision is modified to

¶16

the extent of permitting the father to visit and meet the children, Chandra Neel Sai and Laxmi Sudha, in the house of the maternal grandmother every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. This order shall however not preclude the parties from applying to the Family Court, Warangal, for modification depending upon the exigencies of the situation. It would also be open to the parties to apply to the Family Court, Warangal, for separate orders as to visitation during the vacations.

¶17

7. The civil revision petition is disposed of with the above directions. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶18

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶19

Date: September 20, 2014. BS B

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5242 of 2013

¶22

Date: September 20, 2014

¶23

BSB

Gurramula Shivaram, v. Gurramula Mamatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurramula Shivaram, v. Gurramula Mamatha

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. S. Kalavathi, Vs The District Collector and Direct

Rudra Raju Venkata Naga Bangaru Raju, Vs Union of India, rep.by its Addl.Secretary/Director General

Takkellapati Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Yellanki Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs The Special Deputy Collector ( T.W)

Bommaku Venkatesh, Vs The Joint Collector

S.S.Mohd.Habeeb Meraj Urrab Ansari , Vs Mr.Somesh Kumar