SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vyamsani Venkateshwarlu vs Juluri Praveen Praveen Kumar on 23 October, 2019

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

Civil Revision Petition No.741 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under SectionArticle 227 of the

Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/father-in-

law of the respondent, challenging the order, dated

24.01.2019, passed in I.A.No.399 of 2018 in

G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2017, by the VI Additional District

Judge, Godavarikhani, whereby, on a petition filed by the

respondent herein under Sections 8 and 12 of the

Guardian and SectionWards Act, 1890, read with Section 151 of

C.P.C., for grant of visitation rights to visit his minor son

namely Juluri Deekshith, who is in the custody of the

revision petitioner, the Court below directed the revision

petitioner to allow the respondent to see his minor son on

every first and third Sunday from 10:00 AM to 12:00

Noon, at the house of the revision petitioner, in his

presence.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and

perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

would contend that the respondent is an accused in a

Sessions Case registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 304B, Section302, Section498A of IPC and Sections 3

and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, for brutally
2

murdering his wife. The ward as well as the revision

petitioner and his family members would be at risk in

allowing the respondent to see his son at their house and

ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge

and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for. It is

further submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner that

the Court below may be directed to dispose of

G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2017 expeditiously.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent would contend that there is no denial of the

paternity of the respondent. Though the respondent is an

accused in a Sessions Case, his right to visit his son

cannot be denied and ultimately prayed to dismiss the

Civil Revision Petition.

5. In view of the above rival contentions, the point

that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition

is as follows:

“Whether the order, dated 24.01.2019,
passed in I.A.No.399 of 2018 in
G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2017 by the VI Additional
District Judge, Godavarikhani, is liable to be
set aside?”

6. There is no dispute that the respondent is an

accused in a Sessions Case, wherein he is being

prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections

304B, Section302, Section498A of IPC and Sections 3 and Section4 of the
3

SectionDowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial in the said

Sessions Case has not yet commenced. It is vehemently

contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that his

daughter (wife of the respondent) was brutally murdered

by the respondent causing several injuries and there is

apprehension of threat to his life as well as the ward and

other family members, who are the witnesses in the said

Sessions Case, in the hands of the respondent. It is

further contended that the revision petitioner does not

want the respondent to visit his house.

7. Under the given circumstances, merely because the

respondent is an accused in a Sessions Case, his right to

visit his son shall not be denied. However, the safety and

security of the ward, the revision petitioner and his family

members, is also a matter of paramount consideration.

8. Under these circumstances, to strike a balance

between the two conflicting interests, the impugned

order, dated 24.01.2019, passed in I.A.No.399 of 2018 in

G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2017 by the VI Additional District

Judge, Godavarikhani, is modified as follows:

“The respondent herein is permitted to see

and interact with his son, who is in the custody of

the revision petitioner, once in a month, for half an

hour, in the open Court where G.W.O.P.No.26 of
4

2017 is pending, on the date of hearing of

G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2017. The learned VI Additional

District Judge, Godavarikhani, is also directed to

dispose of G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2017, pending on its

file, as expeditiously as possible.”

9. With the above modification of the impugned order,

this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil

Revision Petition shall stand closed.

_
Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
23rd October, 2019
Bvv

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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