Allowed

Akula Sandeep v. Akula @ Kodijuttu Bhuvaneshwari Devi

Telangana HC19 Feb 2024CRLP/1934/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Civil Revision Petition under Article 227. Modified trial court order granting only WhatsApp visits to provide supervised physical visitation rights to mother at Family Court building for second Saturdays between 2 PM to 5 PM.

What did the court decide?

Visitation rights granted at Family Court building visitation room on every Second Saturday from 2 P.M to 5 P.M.

Akula Sandeep Vs Akula @ Kodijuttu… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵¹

¶2

I I i I

¶3

i i i I I l1 I I I i Ij i It I I I I I I I

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1934^{OF 2024}

¶9

Petition under Anicle 227 of the constitution^{of lndia aggrievedby the order} dated^.19-04-2024 Passed^{in 1.A.No.4570t 2024 in o.P.No.890 0f 20230n the file} oi the court of the Judge, I^{AdditionalFamily Court-cum-XlV Additional} Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt, B.Vimala ra K.Vimala. w/o B.Viiav Kumar aqed^{about 28 years,occ.} Housewife R/o -n.uo. 2-9-z+9/8. NGOS Colony, Hanamkonda, Waddepally, Hanamakonda District

¶12

...Petitioner(Petitioner )

¶13

AND

¶14

B.Vijay Kumar, s/o B.Narsimha,^{aged about 33 year, occ. Business, R/o} 11-i-6901N26, Afzal Sagar,^{Habeeb Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶15

...ResPondent(ResPondent)

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} permit the petitioner herein to have the^{custodyof the children atleast twicein a} week, in the interest of .iustice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: Sri GajuAnil Kumar}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent:^{Sri B AnilKumar Yadav}

¶20

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶21

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1934 OF 20.24

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This rer,;sion petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dat,:d 19.O4.2024 passed in I.A.No.457 of 2024 in O.P.No.890 of 2023 on the hle of Judge, I-Additional Family Court-cum-XI/ Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶25

The pet.tkrner herein hled I.A.No.457 of 2024 seeking interim custod], of her children. The trial Court disposed of the petition granti:1g visiting rights to her through whats app video calls on every llunday betu,een 2 P.M to 5 P.M. Aggrieved by thc said order, this; rcvision petition is hled by the petitioner herein.

¶26

Heard Sri G.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Aril Kumar Yadav, Iearned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that the chiidren are tender aged and their custody must be with the mother and without observing the same, the trial Court

¶28

¶29

I i I I I 1,l I I

¶30

wrongly disposed of the matter only^{granting visiting rights} through whatsApp video call and^{for the last one year,the} mother is restrained from seeing^{her childrenand whenever, she} visited to see her children, the^{respondent is makinggalata and} in this regard, she gave complaint^{to the police.As such,} requested the Court to allow this^{revision by granting interim} custody of the children to the^petitioner.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned^{counsei for responden[} would submit that the children are^{with the respondent for the} last one year and he is taking^{care of his childrenand the} children are not willing to^go to^{their mother.The said} observation was made by the^{trial Court in the order.As such,} requested the Court to dismiss^{this revision petition-}

¶32

In view of the submissions^{made by both counsel and a} perusal of the material on record, admittedly,^{the children are} tender aged and from^{18.06.2023,the children are withthe} father and mother is not allowed^{to see the children, as thereis} a gap of more than one^{year, there is every possibility of children} reluctant to go to their mother.^{Therefore, opportunity has to be} given to the mother to see her children.^{Hence, the orderof the} trial Court is modihed to^{the extentof visitation rightsthrough}

¶33

¶34

whatsap video call, to that of visiting the children at Family Court building visitation room at Kalpataru on every Second Saturday fronr 2 P.M to 5 P.M. The respondent has to bring his children to ttre Court of Family Court Judge at Kalpataru on every Second Saturday from 2 P.M to 5 P.M.

¶35

With th,: above observations, this Civil Revision Pelition is disposed of.

¶36

Misce llaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand

¶37

closed

¶38

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// l\ '--/ SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

1 . The Judge. I Additionar Famiry court-cum-XrV Additionar Metroporitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

¶41

?. 9n"^{CC to Sri Gaju Anit Kumar,Advocate} [OpUC]

¶42

One CC to Sri B Anil Kumar yadav, Advocite [OpUC]

¶43

Two CD Copies

ADl(gh

t /

a I I l I

I I I I t I

HIGH COURT

DATED:29111t2024

ORDER

_-::=:--:-__<br>ihtr s l^. c
(
(.(>
lL) 01 FtB 2025
a
i !tt:SPATCrrEQ *

¶53

CRP.No.1934 of 2OZ4

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE CRP

Akula Sandeep v. Akula @ Kodijuttu Bhuvaneshwari Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akula Sandeep v. Akula @ Kodijuttu Bhuvaneshwari Devi

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

Mende Bejamma Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Hamza Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Aslam Vs The State of Telangana

Modem Arun Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Sharfuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Munnaluri Shashi Kashyap Vs The State of Telangana