Allowed

Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani, v. Smt. Ruksar Fathima

Telangana HC30 Jun 2023CRP/1668/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a civil revision petition set aside the trial court's order dismissing a father's interim custody application. The court held that while interim custody was premature without evidence, the petitioner was entitled to visitation rights in the interest of the children's welfare pending the main trial. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; Impugned order dated 01.05.2023 set aside; visitation rights granted every second Saturday.

Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani, Vs Smt. Ruksar… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1668 OF 2023

¶8

Petition filed under Article 227 of constitution of rndia, aggrieved by the order dated 01 05.2023 passed in l.A.No. 374 ot 2023 in GWop.No i 4 of 2022 on the iile of the Family court cum lll Additional District and Sessions court at Nizamabad.

¶9

Betwee n:

¶10

Mohammed T{addin Hunani,, S/o Late l\4ohammed younus Hunani, Aoe 31 years, Occ. Business. R:/o H.No.9_13-62, orp i; Oru;;;; M%qid, Barkathpura, Nizamabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Smt. Ruksar.Fathima,, Wo Mohammed Tajuddin Hunanr, Dio lVlohammed Saleem lsani, Age 29 years, occ. eusinesi, R6 H.r.tl.6-+_rzo, Oritt, road,(Barkathpura)Nizbmabad

¶14

2 lVlaster Arlohammed Mu(aza, S/o l\zlohammed Taiuddin, Age B years, Occ. Student staying at Kakatiya public School. nlo Hlf.ro.g_q r20, Ouiila ro a d, ( Ba rkath pura)N iza m-abad

¶15

3 I,4aster Mohammed Ahmed Siraj, S/o Mohammed Tajuddrn. Aged 6 years, Occ. S^tudent staying_at Kakatiy6 pubtic Sch;f^-R/o-il No s_a-izo, duiili, road,(Barkathpura)Nizamabad.

¶16

(Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the sons of the petitioner No.1 and are mlnors, as such they are represented by their natural mother/ g ua rd ran/petitio ner. t,to i.

¶17

..,RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2 023

¶19

Petition under Section 15'1 of cpc praying that rn the circunrstances statcd in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be ple;:sed to grant interim custody of the minors to the petitioner once in a week for 12 hours, visiting rights, in the interest of justice.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.A.K. MUKHEED

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondents : Sri SHAFATH AHMED KHAN

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶24

CML REVISION PETITION No.1668 of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Civil Rcvisior-i Pcrirron rs Illccl agarnst the Order dafed O1.O5.2O23 in 1.A.No.374 ot' 2023 in GWOp.No. 14 of 2022, passed by the learrrcd Ftrrnrlr Corrrr -Jr-rrlge cum - III-Additional District & Sessior-rs.)udge , Nizamabaci.

¶27

One Ruksar l.:rrltintaT rcspotrcit.iti No I he rein along with her two minor childrc:r.r lilecl (.iW()l). No. i f ol 2022 against her husband/ peti Lioncr orr l-:i.I l.-20.12. iir ilrc custody of minor chiidren, who are agccl ubout 8 r,ears artri 6 years. During the pendency of thc saici O.l), pctiliorrcr lrcrcrn ilted I.A.No.374 of 2023 in GWOP.No.I4 oi 2O22, r-(,.llr(.sr1nq the Court to grant interim custodJ/ of thc ntinor-c.hikl,/rr.sltor.trlcnts No.2 & 3 along with visitation rrgitts. 'l'lte rria j Ctourl nftt,r considering the arguments of botlt sirlcs. rlisntisse.rl lltL, application on the ground thal he ca,rt.t i.lrrir. trro r.t.lrr.l's r, ,r.t. :rltplication and it is contrary to rLli(, 5.J l1 (. t. l).C irrtri ;ilsr; ltclcl i}-rat the said applicatiou is rrot nt;LrrrrltiLulirl(.. ;ls qfii,t,lg,f interirn custody requires full tritri li r,.rts rrlsO obst'rrerj iitrri ,,rltcrr Gutrrdian O.p was filed fclr th. c.rrsl,ch ,,1 1p1,,,r, r ],1\i. li'L.r-r.t r.,.rslocl' Cal-rnot

¶28

¶29

i;rt q1-;q 111,.,1 '1tilr)Lli r,r;icir .t re thc trral. Aggrievcd b1 the sr,ri<.1 ()rclct-. tht, l,t^s,.,,r ( : ;, ,j .. -:, rr petitton is prcfcrr,.d

¶30

) i ltr, yr,,t lr,rnt:r lrusl ;,ncl contcnded that he is the nat tr rai gLl:tfdiillt it n(l h(, lt:1s ,.r.ci r liqhr to see his children He etlso filed scliool lec r('C.'ll)ts lncl olltrtr docUments, bUt they u'sps n.1 Considct-c.i lr! thc tr_ill LlCrrrt He is having love and affection [onlrrds D,tl'trtr r.lri]ri;r.n. ilr, itnd his wife are residing in lhc sit,lc lrlit.r_. rs srir.Jr rir. rli:;r.issal oI the visitation rtgh[s is ltot prolter rrncl IIrrrs r_r,c1rrr stCC Lltc Court to set aside thc Orcler pltssi:d l)r tltr it ;rl C.OrI

¶31

1 iit thc CoLtnl(,r fjllrl Ix,fespondents, respondent No 1/u.ite cor.t l cndt,rl llrrrr l)(,LllI) n(.r lt.tr:rsSed her with a demand o[ Its. J, {JO,Ot)01 a d rlrlro;r rr I rlorr r_,. and he was not looking aftcr the ncccssitics ol tlt, ntin,,r r.lr lr1

¶32

its such she gave complaln t :tgatu)st ltirn. l\ ttlj( )nl:.r t.j sc r'l< rn g for interim custody ol the Inln()r-s EUt(l IIl Ica t'tltnq ltr'r sitittii)g that he will take aq,ar. the lllin()t s to ()Ltli iitl s,, i'r'r1,, ;tr(l itrrlt, thcm, so that he can I.orce hcL lo it!r.r,i, lrrt \ I ll rrttt ( t-!l:i and conditions rega rdirrg Sltl fur-ther stated that if tLrc 1)^;lJ()t)c1- takes away the m jnors ll orl ltcr rr,lrr.Jt r,;ri ,'',r],

¶33

)

¶34

IlciLlci :rrgumt'rrts^{ol- boLh the Counscl.Thcre is no disputc} regarriing Lht' inarririgc and^{paLernity. No doubt,respotrclent} No.l/u'rli fileci^pcritron lor custody^{of minor children and it is} pcr-rding irclorc rhc tnal Court. During the pendency of the saici petition, pctilioner sought for interim custody, but interim custociv cilnnot be grantcd, as it amounts to disposing of thc main O.P ri ithout zrn.r' cvidcnce, but the petitioner is entitlcd for visit:rtior nqhts. Rcspondent No.1 mainly contended th:rt rf at all i,isrtairtirr r-ights arc granted to him, he may takc au.a1' the chilcircr: to^(]u.l.rr.lt or to a far placc within her rcacir. Consiclcrinq hcr ap1:rehension and welfare of the minor chilci, thrs^(lolrrt i'irrris rt Jrist and reasonable to set aside thc Ordcr ol' ther trral Court un(i to grant visitation rights to the petitioncr hercrrr^,-rrrc e ur :r nronth i.e., on every second Saturdal' fronr l0:00 A.\4 to 5:O0 l).M. The pctitioner can take the childrcn to his lroust' llr I0:00 A.M and return them back to their mothcr,/rt'sponclcnt No. 1 by 5:00 P.M in the evening ancl he sholrlc1 rrol rnul<t::rnv elforts to take away the children from lh<. .lLtrrsrirctrorr^{ol tlre Llourt and rf does so, he} is^liabJc lor^penirl i'O]rs('.rLi('r( ('s Rciiir ihe ltartics are at libert5r to get rcad. ',,rti) ihr:^{(iir:rr-ritan()} [' in t]'rc iriai Court for early dispositi oi ihr. Sllil!('

¶35

¶36

6 In thc r:sult, tlte Cir rl Rcvision petitiotr rs :rllour:ci 1l scIti|rs :rsrrlrr tire orclt:-r- of t]iLr trjal collr.r ..r1cci r-r j oJ.lol.l r. 1.A.No.374 <)l' 2023 in CWC)t,.No. 1,1 of2022.'l'lrcr.r, sl13 il l;1. 1111 O|clr:rs zts to Cos tS.

¶37

Miscellan,.:ous p.titiolts pencling, iI artr, shiLll sla,c]

closed

To,

,TRUE COPY//

Sd/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A)

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

, IL"r:ZT:l Courr,rum ilt Additionat District and Sessions Court ar

¶44

2 One CC to Sri IV.A.K.IVUKHEED, Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to Sn SHAFATH AHMED KHAN, Advocate [OpUC]

¶46

4 Two CD Copies

¶47

\ ;lr .4'-

I'lr

HIGH COURT

PSS,J

DATED:30 t06t2023

ORDER

CRP.No.1668 of 2023

$<br>.t$
+
o,t C
u- $
\
.C
c|ll + aJ<br>

¶55

ALLOWNG THE PETITION

¶56

(, ,l'Y \ /- i \ r\1^'

Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani, v. Smt. Ruksar Fathima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani, v. Smt. Ruksar Fathima

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

G.Anjaiah Vs M/S. Drs Transport Company and Anr.

Kadipe Jahangir Vs Kompelly Chandra Sekhara Reddy

K. Bikshapathi Vs S. Subbaraiyulu Naidu and Another

P. Ravinder Reddy Vs M/S. M.R. Travels and Another

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri a. Satya Ramulu and Another

Miss M.A. Nirmala Kumari Vs Konda Ramesh and Another