Allowed

Pooja Rathod v. Tarun Rathod

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022CRP/1079/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge declined to enter into the merits of the custody dispute but disposed of the civil revision by granting the respondent interim visiting rights for the minor child on weekends, restricting movement to Hyderabad.

What did the court decide?

Granting of visiting rights to the respondent for the minor child on every Saturday from 6.00 P.M. to Sunday 6.00 P.M., restricted to Hyderabad.

Pooja Rathod Vs Tarun Rathod — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1079 OF 2022

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Orders dated 23-01-2020, passed in l.A. No. 2 ol 2O2O in O.S. No. 343 of 2019, on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Family Court at Chennai lll Principal Judge, at Chennai Preferred against Order now transferred and renumbered as O.P. No. 119 ol 2022, on the file of the Court of the Judge, Additional Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pooja Rathod, W/o Tarun Rathod, Aged about 32 years, Rl/o H.No. 3-6-27, Skyline Theatre Road, Chandra Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, T.S. 500 029

¶9

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶10

AND

¶11

Tarun Rathod, S/o Arvind Kumar, Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No, 26, Polu Naicken Street, Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 012.

¶12

.,. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶13

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶14

Between:

¶15

Tarun Rathod, S/o Arvind Kumar, Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.26, Polu Naicken Street, Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 012.

¶16

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶17

AND

¶18

Pooja Rathod, W/o Tarun Rathod, Aged about 32 years, Ri/o H.No. 3-6-27, Skyline Theatre Road, Chandra Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, T.S. 500 029

¶19

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶20

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted in CRP No 1079 of 2022 dated 0910612022 .

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated: 23-01-2020, passed in l.A. No. 2 of 2020, in O.S. No. 343 of 2019, renumbered as O.P. No. 119 of 2022, now pending on the file of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the revision petition.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings in E.P. No. 9 of 2021 in O.S. No. 343 of 2021, renumbered as O.P. 119 of 2022, now pending before the Hon'ble Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the revision petition .

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. MOHD ABDUL MUQTADIR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent : SRl. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NA\IEEN RAO

¶30

C.n.l'.No.1079 OF 2022

¶31

ORDER;

¶32

This revision is preferred against the order dated 23.01.2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.343 of 2019 on the file of III Additional Family Court at Chennai, State of Tamilnadu, which was later transferred to the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court, Cify Civil Court, Hyderabad, and re-numbered as O"P.No.1 19 of 2022.

¶33

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if visiting riglrts are granted to the respondent to see the minor child by name Darsh Rathod during rveekends, it would suffice for the present.

¶34

According to tl.re learned counsel, the respondent is doing business in Chennai and is willing to come to Hyderabad on every weekend to visit the child and he is seeking custody ofthe child every Saturday from 6.00 P.M to Sunday 6.00 P.M.

¶35

Leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly agreed for the said proposal.

¶36

In view thereof, without entering into the merits of the case, this Civil

¶37

Revision Petition is disposed of granting visiting rights to the respondent.

¶38

The respondent shall take the child-Darsh Rathod on every Satur.day at 6.00 P.M from the residence of the petitioner and hand over the chiid to the petitioner on Sunday by 6.00 P.M. This arrangement shall continue from next week onwards till the disposal of the O.p. It is made clear that the respondent shall lot take the child to cher.rnai or any other place out of the City of Hyderabad. Since this Court has not entered into the merits of tl.re case, the contentions of both the parties are left open to be urged at an appropriate stage.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶40

¶41

SD/.M.MANJULA DEPUTY REGIST ,TRUE COPY' (, SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To'1. The lll Additional Familv Court at Chennai lll Principal Judge, at Chennai' Z. Tne JuOge, Additional^{Family Court, City Civil-Court-at Hyderabad'}

¶43

One CCio Sri Mohd Abdul^{tt/uqtadir, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶44

a. One CC to Srl Rama Chandra^{RaoGurram, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶45

Two CD Copies

¶46

One Spare Copy

CDL obr { Ll

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0110712022

1 g STAr5' O.tl
A rt rutilll a
i
t
oEgiJi.'i

¶51

ORDER

¶52

CRP.No.1079 of 2022

¶53

DISPOSINC OF THE CRP.

Pooja Rathod v. Tarun Rathod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Rathod v. Tarun Rathod

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

A.Usha Rani Vs Sri. Sandeep Sultania and 2 others

Shaik Rafi Ahmed Vs Shri Sunil Dutt

J.Venkataiah Vs M.Vasuchandra

Guda Lakshmi Lalithya Vs S. Sandeep

M/s.Om Prakash Jewellers and Pearls Vs Mrs.Uma Bung Bagri

IskaAkshara Vs S.Ravichandra Reddy