Disposed

Smt. Tatineni Mayuri v. Shri Edara Baldev

Telangana HC10 Mar 2022CRP/416/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged a docket order passed in an application for virtual access to a minor child. The High Court held the challenge infructuous and additionally directed the Family Court to expedite settlement terms and avoid summoning the minor child unnecessarily.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Family Court directed to expedite settlement and avoid summoning the minor child.

Smt. Tatineni Mayuri Vs Shri Edara Baldev — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF [4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶4

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 416 OF 2022

¶5

Petition under Afticle 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 2210212022 in lA No.130 of 2022 in OP No.731 of 2011 on the^{file of the Court of the} judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶6

Between:

¶7

smt ratineni Mavuri' wo Edara Baldev

¶8

...pETrroNER/RES'.NDENT/pETrroNER AND

¶9

shri Edara Baldev' S/o Edara Arjun

¶10

...RESpoNDENT/pETrroNER/ RESpoNDENT

¶11

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶12

Petition under Section 151 of CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to^{order suspension of the} Docket Order daled 22-02-2022^passed in lA.No. 130 o{ 2A22 h^{OP No.731 of 2011,} on the file of Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court/Hyderabad

¶13

For the Petitioner : M/s S.VANl, Advocate

¶14

For the Respondent : SRI S.NAGESWARA REODY, Advocate

¶15

The Court made the fol owing: ORDER

¶16

¶17

! I I

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN CIVIL TTEVISI ON PETITI ON No.416 oF 2022

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Heard Ms. Vani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Nages\vara Reddy, Iearned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.

¶21

2 There is a matrimoniai dispute between the parties whlch is pending before the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.p.No.73 1 of 2O11. An interlocutory application was filed by the respondent seeking virtual access to the minor child through video conferencing and also to allow him to attend the school function of the minor child. The said interlocutory application was registered as I.A.No.130 of 2022. The follow,ing order came to be passed in I.A.No. 130 ol 2022 on 22.02.2022:-

¶22

Responclent prescltt :l.i cl hlecl counler. Re _ prescn r.rt ior.r made or-r behalf of petitioner. Heard both, it is evlclcr')t that thc boarci eri,rms of thi minor child :ire going t_,n. 1'].rrs court permltta.(l the responclent herctn to meet the minor chrlcl crer1, da1. ciuring erening, to know about [hc progress :rnd preparation of the child for exams. The petitioner submitted documenr rhat rhe child is required to submit consent letter to the school for every examination, with confirmation that she does not have any covid symptoms nor any of her family members. Consideiing this aspect, the respondent also submits that the phone c6mmunication is to be continued every day to avoid any dou bts aboui-sp.eraing of covid through him to the child. Without prejudice to the contentions of the parties on the other gror.rd" mentioned, in view of the specific instructions of the ihool authorities, this court. is recalling the orders dated 1g.O2.2022 giving permission to respondent to meet the minor child at the house of the petitioner herein. Horvever, the petitioner shall permit the minor child to speak to the respondent through video cails

¶23

¶24

every^{day between6'30 pm and 6'45 pm and allow herto} of urthout .p-resence interact^{with the} -tp";;;;';lone' ;^{:; i[;",} "; ; ",, "i'.-"-tl [1'-Tf H :,.'];. [: l] : " T,' Xil r.' u'^r h e^{gracr tt a t ion da1 rt.r} oi :JIIJ',":t[T:l!#.ii'I'l;;. '''' be cclcbrared^{for thc t;i;"';;} '']t.'o.^'l -^oft"t , 1llm1lcriorr 'lrlarch 2021 anci thar tlrc chil<l cxaminations^{on 9'r orI U]'"oi} wishe<l^{for his presence ut} "tnnot^{This rvill il: th:-:I:-,':1:} ;:U";;";,r';i;e'lift^{or thc chil<1 :tnrl as sttch llrc^petttt.trcrts} ii,".*a ["5fli:;:;'^{to makc} :^{:::$ki:minfara.cc'r} " ":":':i: :[1;f :l:l;l:;'l ,i,:;.":',',:;l b'': il iIr parties and^{productlon ol}

¶25

nation^{of the} 3 It is submitted^{at the bar that the examt} Even the^{school fLlnctionscheduled} minor^{child is no"r'over'} However,^{learned counselfor the} todaY^{has been PostPoned'} petitioner^{submits that there was no such function in the} school.

¶26

.+ Be that as^{it maY, the challengemade in this revtston} petition^{as tothe docket order dated 22 02'2022 has been} lf that^{be the position' rt is no longer} rendered^infructuous necessar<sup>for the petilioner to sullmitaflicl;rvitol coml;liaucc as directed,^{vide the above docket order'}

¶27

5 Hori ever.^{taking !his clpporrutrilr'' Coltrt is oi tl-t'' i ieu} that the^{Famil,".,Court should expeditethe terms of settlement} between^{the parties as directed by the Supreme Court,Family} Court^{shouldalso ensure that unless it isabsolutely} necessary,^{the minor child should not be directed to be} produced^{before the Court on each and every occasion'}

¶28

¶29

Calling of a chiid to the Court should be avoided to the extent

¶30

possible.

¶31

6 This disposes of the Civil Revision Petition. No order as

¶32

to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if an,r', pending in this Civil

¶33

Revision Petition shall also stand dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-M-MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶35

SECTI N C R

¶36

¶37

1 The Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad. 2 One CC to M/s S.Vani, Advocate (OPUC) 3 One CC to Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 4 Two CD Copies 5 One Spare Copy k K

HIGH COURT

OArED:'1010312022

ORD ER

CRP.No.416 of 2022

1HE sIA ).- ,C
oo 81 14,.l] Lt: .l
*

¶43

DISPO5I^&OFTHE CRP WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶44

(y
,;\ ob Ir)

Smt. Tatineni Mayuri v. Shri Edara Baldev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tatineni Mayuri v. Shri Edara Baldev

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

M/S Sai Rayalaseema Paper Mills Limited, Hyd Vs M/S Pallavi Dealers Private Limited, Mumbai

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar Bantia Vs K.N. Murthy

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar Bantia and another Vs K.N. Murthy and another

K. Anand and another Vs K. Mallesh and 3 others

Dr. a. Santosh Vs Srinivas Sakilam

C.M. Ramesh Vs the State of Telangana