Allowed

Sri. Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani v. Smt. Ruksar Fathima

Telangana HC3 Mar 2023CRP/688/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a civil revision petition set aside a Family Court order dismissing an application to advance hearing dates. The trial Court had rejected the request on technical grounds regarding missing medical documents. The High Court, finding the dismissal erroneous, directed the trial Court to decide the interim custody application on merits.

What did the court decide?

The unders docket order dated 14.02.2023 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the interim custody application on merits.

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

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ I

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD^{DAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE^SUDHA

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of^{lndia againstthe Docket} Order dated 14.02.2023 in LA.No .172 of 2023^{in GWOP.No.14 of 2022 on the file} of the Court of the Judge, Family Court -Cum- lll Additional^{DistrictCourt at} Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri. Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani, S/o. Late. Mohammed Yunus Hunani, Aged 31 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 9-13-67, Opp. to Zuadriya Masjid, Barkathpura, Nizamabad.

¶10

... PETITIONER/RESPON DE NT

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Ruksar Fathima, Wo. Mohammed Tajuddin Hunani, D/o. Mohammed Saleem lsani, Aged 29 years, Occ. Business.are resident of R/o. H. No. 9-4120, Quila Road (Barakathpura) Nizamabad)

¶13

Master Mohammed Mutaza, S/o. Mohammed Tajuddin, aged 8 years, Occ. Student staying at Kakatiya Public School.

¶14

Master Mohammed Ahmed Siraj, S/o Mohammed Tajuddin Aged 6 years Occ Student staying at Kakatiya Public School

¶15

(Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the sons of the Petitioner No. I and are minors in age, as such they are represented by her natural mother/guardian/petitioner No. 1)

¶16

All are resident of R/o. H. No. 9-4-120, Quila Road (Barakathpura) Nizamabad)

¶17

...RES'.NDENTS/'ET.,.NERS

¶18

,.' lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Family Court Cum lll Additional District Court at Nizamabad to advance the date of hearing in l.A. No. 172 of 2023 in GWOP. No. 14 of 2022 from 31.03.2023 to 06.03.2023 or any nearest possible date and may be pleased to pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. GANGADHAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: ----

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SMT. IUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA C.R.P. No.588 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This civil revision petition is filed against the docket order dated 14.02.2023 in I.A.No.172 of 2023 in GWoP No.14 of 2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Ill Additionat District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

Respondent Nos.L to 3 herein filed GWop No.14 of 2022 before the Judge, Family Court-cum-Ill Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, seeking to appoint respondent No.1 as legal guardian of respondent Nos.2 and 3 permanently, and that the petitioner-husband shall not claim custody of minor children from her custody in future. During pendency of the said o.p., the petitioner/husband filed I.A.No.172 of 2023 seeking to advance the case from 31.03.2023 to 14.02.2029. But the said application

¶28

¶29

i. ::

¶30

I i t: I I I I! t, i:

¶31

was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated^{that the minor} childrery i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and^{3 herein,aged 8 and 6 years} are residing with respondent No.1/wife^{and she filed Guardian} O.P.No.1 4 of 2022 for custody^{of the minor children but, sincethe} grandmother i.e., petitioner's^{mother was suffering from ilt} health, he filed an apptication^{seeking interim custody of the} children and hence requested^{the tourt to advance the case.}

¶33

Perused the docket order.^{Merely because the matters} pertaining to the year^{2018 and20'J.6 are pending beforethe Court} below and also the^{fact that admission card of the hospital, where} the petitioner's mother underwent^{treatment, was not filed, the} Court below cannot dismiss the^{application filed for} advancement of the case.^{The facts and circumstancesof each} case differs. The application filed before the trial Court is only for advancing the case from g7.0g.2022 to 06.0g.202g. The triar Court

¶34

¶35

ought to have allowed the application^{and decided the I.A. on} merits, instead of dismissing the same on technical^{grounds viz.,} non-filing of the admission card to show that petitioner's mother was bed ridden. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the trial Court is patently erroneous and the same is Iiable to be set aside.

¶36

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the docket order dated 14.02.2023 in I.A.No.172 of 2023 in GWOP No.L4 of 2022 passed by the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the I.A.S.R.No.176 of 2023 dated 18.01.2023

¶37

filed for interim custody on merits by duly giving opportunity to

¶38

both sides.

¶39

As a sequel to, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶40

stand closed.

¶41

, Sd/-V.KAVITHA //TRUE COPY/ SE OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Judge, Family Court -Cum- lll Additional District Court at Nizamabad 2. One CC to SriT. Gangadhar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies gbr 'y

HIGH COURT

DATED: 03/0312023

ORDER

,..v 'i ;ii..;'
,,,<4,.
,'. ,-!:".
.{t. 'l :.
<.--l' t
L:
ll
:
:, Q3$
tr.
.,,.1
I 1,,;ti-<br>

¶48

CRP.No.688 of 2023

¶49

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

Sri. Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani v. Smt. Ruksar Fathima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Janardhan Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Smt. Kyasaram Gangamani Vs Sri Kyasaram Balreddy

Chakinam Vishalakshi Vs Yeshwanth Pawar

Mr. Vasa Tulasidhar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad Vs State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Others

G. Mallaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy Vs The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl)