Y.Chetana [Jampala Chetana] vs. Y.Venkateshwara Rao

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

F.C.A.Nos. 185 of 2005 & 53 of 2006

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

Both the appeals arise out of the order, dated 10.11.2005 passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.338 of 2004 filed under Section 13(i) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce, pleading the grounds of cruelty.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.

The respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Their marriage took place on 10.02.2000, and they were blessed with a female child, in the year 2003. However, their relationship did not continue to be harmonious, and they fell apart. The petitioner enlisted various instances, which according to him, constitute cruelty towards him, on account of the acts and omissions of the respondent. The O.P. was opposed by the respondent, by filing a counter. All the allegations made by the petitioner are denied. After recording oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court allowed the O.P., granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner. In addition to that, the trial Court directed that the custody of the minor child shall be with the respondent and the petitioner was given visiting rights on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 6.00 a.m., and overnight stay on second Saturdays. Neither the petitioner, nor the respondent, have challenged the decree of divorce. The petitioner, however, filed F.C.A.No.53 of 2006, assailing the decree in so far as it granted the custody of the minor child to the respondent. The latter, in turn, filed

F.C.A.No.185 of 2005, feeling aggrieved by the grant of visiting rights, in respect of the minor child to the petitioner.

Heard Smt.K.Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

Across the Bar, it is stated that the petitioner does not intend to press F.C.A.No.53 of 2006.

The controversy that remains to be resolved is only about the visiting rights, in respect of the minor child.

It is an unfortunate case, where the marriage between two highly educated persons, hailing from respectable families, has gone into rough weather. Equally unfortunate is that the pretty child, who can be a source of happiness for the entire family, is required to share the company of her mother and father separately and not together.

Most of the evidence in the trial Court was as regards the claim for divorce. The respondent is certainly entitled to the custody of the minor child, being natural mother. At the same time, the right of the petitioner to visit the child, cannot be denied. Even while granting the visiting rights, the trial Court is required to ensure that the minor girl is not put even to the smallest of inconvenience.

After ascertaining the views of the parties as well as the child, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the visiting rights are modified to the extent that the petitioner shall have the right to have the custody of the child between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. on every alternative Sunday. In addition to that, he can be given the custody of the child with the same timings, for a period of one week in the summer vacation of the school of the child; three days each in winter and Dasara vacations, by requiring him to make fixed deposits in a Nationalised Bank.

Hence, F.C.A.No.53 of 2006 is dismissed, as not pressed.

F.C.A.No.185 of 2005 is partly allowed, modifying the order passed by the trial Court to the effect that,

• a) the petitioner shall have the right to visit the minor Child, Baby Hema Srita, on every alternative Sunday, between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m;
• b) he shall also be entitled to have visiting rights for a period of one week in summer vacation; three days each in Dasara and winter vacations of the school of the child, according to the same timings, i.e. between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m;
• c) the petitioner shall make fixed deposit of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) in the name of the minor child,

in a Nationalised Bank, in such a way that it can be encashed, on the child attaining the age of majority; within four weeks from today; and another fixed deposit, in the same Nationalised Bank, for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs (Rupees fifteen lakhs) within six months from today. In default of making these deposits,

the petitioner shall forego the right to visit the child; and

d) the petitioner shall ensure that the child is not annoyed in any way, during the course of his interaction with her, nor he shall speak anything ill about the respondent before the child.

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of.

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

____________________

S.V. BHATT, J.

____________________

Dated:24.04.2013

GJ/KO