Smt. Dasari Pridhvi Ramana Pridhvi ... vs Venkat Praveen Dasari
2025 Latest Caselaw 2893 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Dasari Pridhvi Ramana Pridhvi ... vs Venkat Praveen Dasari on 7 March, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

                                     AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                    CONTEMPT APPEAL No.3 OF 2024
                                     AND
                    CONTEMPT CASE No.596 OF 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.J.Pradeep Kiran, learned counsel for the appellant and

Mr.C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material

available on record.

2. During the course of deliberation the learned counsel for the appellant

brought to the notice of this Bench about the development that had

transpired, at the first instance, when the matter was taken up for

consideration on 03.07.2027 by the Bench headed by the Hon'ble The Chief

Justice, the parties on the said date, had agreed upon the following terms of

settlement:

1. Mrs. Dasari Pridhvi Ramana, mother of the child shall hand over the passport of the child Master Kautilya Karthikeyan in the presence of Registrar Judicial of this Court. The Registrar Judicial is directed to keep the passport in a sealed cover in his custody.

2. 2. On furnishing of the passport to the Registrar Judicial of the Court, Mr. Venkat Praveen Dasari shall hand over the custody of the child Master Kautilya Karthikeyan to Mrs. Dasari Pridhvi Ramana.

3. Mr. Venkat Praveen Dasari shall have right to visit the child and to spend time with the child namely Master Kautilya Karthikeyan on first and third Saturday of every month for an initial period of two months. Thereafter Mr. Venkat Praveen Dasari shall be entitled to approach this Court seeking extension of the visitation rights including overnight stay during weekends of his son with him.

4. Master Kautilya Karthikeyan will prosecute his studies in Hyderabad only and shall be not moved out of Hyderabad for the present.

3. Counsel for the appellant in the presence of the appellant in person

had accepted the fact that the said terms of settlement has been honoured

without any obstacle or hindrance.

4. Thereafter the matter came up for consideration again before the

Bench headed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, on 19.09.2024, where again

in addition to the terms of settlement recorded on 03.07.2024, the following

terms were also agreed upon by both the parties which again for ready

reference reproduced herein under:

i. The respondent shall make a video call between 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., on every Tuesday and Thursday so that Master Kautilya Karthikeyan can interact with the appellant, who is his father;

ii. The appellant shall be entitled to spend time with Master Kautilya Karthikeyan on 2nd Saturday, 2nd Sunday and 4th Saturday of every month for initial period of two months. However, the prayer made by the appellant for initial period of two months. However, the prayer made by the appellant for overnight stay with his son during the weekends is deferred for the time being.

5. Thereafter the matter has come up for hearing today. Today also, the

appellant in person along with his counsel so also the respondent in person

along with her counsel were present before this Court.

6. There are requests on either side. The appellant had sought for the

modification of the terms of settlement afore referred to the extent that since

the appellant is enjoying the visitation rights on every second Saturday and

the fourth Saturday of every month, let the appellant father now have the

privilege of having the fortnight custody of the child on the weekend that he

gets the visitation rights.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent wanted

modification to the extent of the duration of the visitation rights to be

reduced from 10:00 a.m. till 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m., as 6:30

p.m. is too late in the evening and it affects the dinner and feeding of the

child.

8. This Bench mediated with the parties in the presence of the counsel

appearing on either side and in the course of deliberation there was a

consensus arrived at to modify the earlier orders to the extent that henceforth

the appellant shall have the right of visitation every week rather than on the

second and fourth weeks that was earlier agreed upon. The respondent

prayed that atleast once a month she has to visit here parental home and she

takes the child along with her and therefore on the Sundays when she may

go to her parental home it would be difficult for her to make available the

child to the appellant father.

9. Again on deliberation, it was agreed upon by the parties that in order

to ensure compliance of the visitation right of every weekend, since the

appellant father has an off on the second Saturday and fourth Saturday, he

may have the visitation right on those two Saturdays of a month so that the

second and fourth Sundays, the child can be available with the respondent

mother. Likewise, on these Sundays, i.e., second and fourth Sundays, if the

mother wants she may visit along with the child to her parental home which

would not disturb the visitation right of the appellant father. Likewise, the

appellant shall also have the visitation right on the first and third Sundays on

which day he may have the custody of the child during the morning till

evening as agreed upon on the earlier dates of hearing.

10. As regards the reducing of the duration of visitation rights, taking into

consideration the objections and the contentions which the respondent has

raised, we do not find it to be too strong and compelling, warranting

interference with the timing agreed upon on the previous date of hearing. We

are also of the opinion that 6:30 p.m. cannot be said to be too late in the

evening which could affect feeding time or the dinner time of the child

particularly since he is a school going child.

11. Accordingly, the following new terms of settlement has been agreed

upon by the parties:

1. The appellant shall have the visitation rights on the

2nd and 4th Saturdays and also 1st and 3rd Sundays

of every month.

2. So far as the timing of the visitation right is

concerned, the same shall remain unchanged i.e.,

from 10.00 AM to 6.30 PM.

3. The said settlement is in modification to the earlier

settlement those have been arrived at in the course

of appeal being heard by this High Court on earlier

dates of hearing.

4. So far as request of the appellant for having

visitation right for a overnight stay of the child

with the appellant, we are of the considered

opinion that let the present arrangements that have

been arrived at continue for some time and if

everything works out smoothly, the appellant

would be free to move appropriate application

before the concerned family court seized of

G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2022 in respect of the said

relief.

5. There would also be the liberty to the parties as

well, to approach the concerned family court for

any further modifications, if required, or for any

further conditions and clarification, if required, so

far as the visitation rights that have been agreed

upon between the parties today.

12. Since there is consensus arrived at between the parties so far as the

visitation right of the child is concerned, we do not find any further good

reasons for keeping the instant contempt appeal pending so also it was

agreed by the parties that the original contempt case also can be closed in the

light of the development that have taken place pending the appeal before this

Bench. Accordingly, the contempt appeal stands disposed of in terms of the

observations made in the preceding paragraphs reserving the liberty as said

in the preceding paragraphs to either of the parties.

13. In the light of the disposal of the Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2025 in

terms of the agreed terms of the right to visitation between the parties so far

as the visiting the child is concerned, the parties in the Contempt Appeal

have also agreed that in the light of the disposal of the Contempt Appeal

No.3 of 2025, nothing would survive in the Contempt Case No.596 of 2024

also. Therefore, the said Contempt Case No.596 of 2024 can also be closed.

It was in this context that this Bench had called for taking up the Contempt

Case No.596 of 2024 along with the present Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2025.

14. Therefore, in the light of the disposal of the Contempt Appeal No.3 of

2025 on the agreed terms of the right to visitation, nothing further survives

in Contempt Case No.596 of 2024. The Contempt Case No.596 of 2024

accordingly stands closed and the respondents therein stand discharged from

contempt proceedings.

15. Further, this court while passing the docket order dated 03.07.2024 in

Contempt Appeal No.3 of 2024, had put a condition that the respondent shall

hand over the passport of the child to the Registry of the High Court, now

that the proceedings before this High Court getting disposed of, we are

directing the Registry to transfer the said passport to the concerned family

court. The family court in turn seized of the G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2022 is

further directed to ensure that the said passport of the child be ordered to be

kept in the safe custody of the administrative officer of the said court till the

pendency of the G.W.O.P or until further orders passed by the family court.

16. In the result, the Contempt Appeal stands disposed of and the

Contempt Case stands closed as above.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J Date: 07.03.2025 AQS