SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sruthi Sreeperumbudur, vs Vijay Kumar Srirangam on 18 September, 2019

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

Civil Revision Petition No.1252 of 2019

ORDER:

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
Dr.SA, J
CRP No.1252/2019
2

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

record.

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
Dr.SA, J
CRP No.1252/2019
3

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
th
18 September, 2019
Bvv

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation