Mr Syed Mohiuddin, Hyderabad vs Ismath Fatima, Hyderabad Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1487 Tel

Item No.8

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                         F.C.A.No.1 OF 2016

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/father

assailing the judgment dated 11.06.2015 passed by the learned Family

Court, rejecting a petition filed by him for seeking custody of the

minor son of the parties (respondent No.2), in the care and custody of

the respondent No.1/mother, on the ground that the respondent No.1,

who is the natural mother and is taking good care of him and also on

the ground that the appellant had already contracted another marriage

and is living with his second wife.

2. The records reveal that by an interim order passed on

14.10.2016, visitation rights were granted to the appellant/father

during the pendency of the appeal and he was permitted to spend two

hours with the respondent No.2/son on every third Saturday of the

month from 10:00 A.M to 12:00 Noon in the office of District Legal

Services Authority, City Civil Court premises, Hyderabad. It was also

clarified that in the event the third Saturday falls on a holiday, the

appellant/father would be entitled to the aforesaid visitation rights on

the fourth Saturday of the same month.

3. On the first call, learned counsel for the appellant/father had

fairly stated that his client is no longer interested in pressing for the

custody of the minor child, but had pointed out that during the

pandemic for the past one year, he did not have physical access to the

child, as was ordered on 14.10.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/mother states that

prior to the pandemic setting in, regular visitation rights in respect of

the minor child were being afforded to the appellant/father in terms of

the order dated 14.10.2016. However, during the pandemic, which hit

the country in March, 2020, the appellant/father had not contacted the

respondent No.1/mother for claiming any virtual visitation rights. She

states that her client is still open to the same.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had passed

over the matter to enable both sides to state if they would be willing

for the order dated 14.10.2016 to be made absolute, till the respondent

No.2 attains majority.

6. On pass over, learned counsel for the appellant/father states that

he has obtained instructions from his client to the effect that he is

agreeable to the interim order dated 14.10.2016 being made absolute.

He however requests that till the pandemic continues, the

appellant/father may be permitted visitation rights in respect of the

minor child through virtual mode. Learned counsel for the

respondents is agreeable to the same.

7. Accordingly, it is agreed that till the situation normalizes, the

appellant/father shall have access to the minor child through virtual

mode on every third Saturday of the month starting from 05.06.2021

from 10:00 A.M., to 11:00 A.M. Thereafter, on the situation

normalizing, the appellant/father shall be permitted visitation rights to

the respondent No.2 in terms of the order dated 14.10.2016, which is

made absolute.

8. The present appeal is disposed of along with the pending

applications, if any, on the above terms.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

01.06.2021 Lrkm/Pln