Disposed

Smt. Abhignya Shesham v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2016WP/284/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking custody. The Court, having heard counsel, accepted the parties' agreement to adhere to the interim order dated 07.01.2016 regarding custody and visitation arrangements with a definite transition date.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of based on the parties' agreement to follow the terms of the interim order dated 07.01.2016 regarding child custody.

Smt. Abhignya Shesham Vs State of Telangana — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A V SESHA SAI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 284 OF 2016

¶5

03.02.2016

¶6

Between: Smt. Abhignya Shesham, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶9

AND

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A V SESHA SAI

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 284 OF 2016

¶12

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

We once again made an effort to bring the parties together, but our efforts were in vain.

¶15

Learned counsel for the parties, however, agreed for disposal of this writ petition in terms of the interim order dated 07.01.2016.

¶16

The interim arrangement made vide order dated 07.01.2016 reads thus:

¶17

“a) Baby-Naga Sai Samhitha was permitted to go with 4^th respondent from Court to stay with 4^th respondent-father till today evening with a definite understanding that the 4^th respondent by 6.00 p.m. hands over the custody of Naga Sai Samhitha to petitioner at her residence.

¶18

b. The petitioner is permitted to have custody of the child till the next date of hearing.

¶19

c. The 4^th respondent is permitted to have access to the child and spend time with her for about 2 to 3 hours everyday preferably between 6.00 p.m to 9.00 p.m. After permitted access hours are over, the 4^th respondent hands over the custody of child to petitioner.

¶20

d. The 4^th respondent is permitted to have custody of child on Saturday and Sunday i.e. 16.01.2016 and 17.01.2016. For the said purpose, the 4^th respondent is entitled to take the child around 11.00 a.m. to his house and hand over by 5.00 p.m.

¶21

e. The mother of petitioner is also present when this arrangement is accepted by the parties and having regard to the special circumstances of the case, we directed the mother of petitioner to stay with petitioner while the custody of child is given to petitioner and she has agreed to this condition.”

¶22

It is made clear that custody of the child with the mother is subject to outcome of the application for custody filed by the respondent/husband in O.P.No.2088 of 2015 before Family Court. Further, it is needless to mention that the petitioner shall continue to stay at Kukatpally along with child and her mother, if necessary, and the respondent/husband shall not disturb her possession of Flat bearing No.317, LIG, Vaddepally Enclave, Viveknagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, pending hearing and final disposal of the proceedings before Family Court.

¶23

With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶24

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶26

A V SESHA SAI, J

¶27

Date: 03.02.2016

¶28

Smt. Abhignya Shesham v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Abhignya Shesham v. State of Telangana

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

B.Yogeswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Bhagawanth Goud, Vs The State of Telangana

Nalla Prabhakar Vs The District Collector

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs V.O. Venugopal Reddy

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad Vs v. Sreedhari

Katyam Malla Reddy, S/o Lakshma REddy Vs The State of Telangana