THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
Civil Revision Petition No.1252 of 2019
This Civil Revision Petition, under SectionArticle 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/wife, challenging the
order, dated 01.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.34 of 2018 in
O.P.No.112 of 2018, by the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.
2. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in
brief, are as follows:
The marriage between the petitioner/wife and the
respondent/husband was solemnized on 19.08.2010 at TTD
Kalyana Mandapam, Liberty Road, Hyderabad. Marriage
consummated and during their wedlock, the couple were blessed
with a boy by name Vishruth on 17.12.2011. Subsequently,
disputes arose between the couple and the petitioner/wife left the
company of the respondent/husband and started living separately.
Subsequently, the petitioner/wife filed O.P.No.112 of 2018 on
01.12.2017 before the Court below seeking divorce, permanent
custody of the minor boy, permanent alimony of Rs.1.5 crores and
Rs.75,00,000/- towards maintenance and educational expenses of
the minor boy. Though conciliation efforts were made and the O.P.
was referred to Mediation Centre, no amicable settlement could be
reached. The respondent/husband filed his counter in the O.P. on
10.12.2018. The said O.P. is coming up for rejoinder of the
petitioner/wife. At that stage, the respondent/husband filed the
subject interlocutory application in I.A.No.34 of 2018 under Section
12 of the Guardians and SectionWards Act, 1890, seeking interim custody
of minor son during weekends, public holidays and vacation. The
Court below, vide impugned order, dated 01.04.2019, refused to
grant interim custody of the minor boy during weekends, public
holidays and vacations, but however, granted visiting rights in
favour of the respondent/husband to see the minor boy on every
1st and 3rd Saturday of the month from 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM in
the office of District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court
Complex, Hyderabad, and directed the petitioner/wife to handover
the minor son to the respondent/husband on the above days and
time and collect back the minor son on the above days and time by
withdrawing herself to be present with the minor son at the time of
visiting rights. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/wife filed this
Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would contend
that though the minor child was reluctant to meet the
respondent/father, the interim custody was granted, which is
erroneous and against the interest of the child and ultimately
prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent/husband would contend that the interim custody of the
child was given only for two hours on 1st and 3rd Saturday of every
month, that too in the premises of District Legal Services
Authority, City Civil Court Complex, Hyderabad. That will help to
develop a bond between the father and child. Furthermore, no
harm or damage would be caused to the interest of the child and
ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Court below
had spoken to the parties to the litigation on different dates before
passing the impugned order and detailed observations are recorded
in the impugned order. The minor boy – Vishruth is seven years
old. He is required to develop affection and bond with his father
(respondent herein). The love and affection of both the parents is
required for the overall development of the child. Grant of interim
custody of the child to his father would not jeopardize the interest
of the child. The Court below had rightly exercised its jurisdiction
in passing the impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in
the order under challenge. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision
Petition, shall stand dismissed.
Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
18 September, 2019