Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1622 (TS)

Smriti Singh v. Vivek Kumar

2025-11-25

P.SAM KOSHY, SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant Contempt Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 assailing the order dated 20.02.2025 in C.C.No.2350 of 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Heard Ms.B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of appellant; and Mr.B. Subash, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Vide order dated 20.02.2025 in C.C.No.2350 of 2023, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the contempt case by holding the appellant guilty of contempt of order dated 04.03.2022 in Civil Revision Petition No.291 of 2022 passed by this Court and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- for each violation committed by the appellant from 26.02.2023 onwards. 4. For properly appreciating the dispute and the core issue involved in the instant appeal, it would be more appropriate if we look into the order which was originally passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.291 of 2022, dated 04.03.2022. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order is extracted as under, viz., “In this case, it is to be seen that already the respondent-father is enjoying the online visitation rights on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, by virtue of the order dated 30.11.2020 in I.A.No.981 of 2020. Insofar as physical visitation rights granted in I.A.No.3645 of 2021 is concerned, the Court below granted physical visitation rights to the father on every working Monday and Wednesday between 03:00 P.M. to 05:00 P.M. at Family Court premises, Ranga Reddy District, whenever he comes to India, which may affect the education of the boy as the boy attends the school on the above said days. Therefore, it is not advisable to grant visitation rights to the father on working days. In view of the same, the order of the Court below in I.A.No.3645 of 2021, dated 07.01.2022, is modified and the respondent / father is granted physical visitation rights of his minor son by name Reyansh on every working Saturday between 01:00 P.M. to 05:00 P.M. whenever the respondent / father comes to India. Whenever he is in Netherlands, the respondent / father can have visitation rights of the child through video-conferencing (on-line) as ordered by the Court below in I.A.No.981 of 2020, dated 30.11.2020. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Whenever he is in Netherlands, the respondent / father can have visitation rights of the child through video-conferencing (on-line) as ordered by the Court below in I.A.No.981 of 2020, dated 30.11.2020. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 5. Alleging willful non-compliance and disobedience of the above order, the respondent (husband) herein filed Contempt Case No.2350 of 2023. Vide order dated 20.02.2025 in Contempt Case No.2350 of 2023, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said Contempt Case and held the appellant (wife) herein guilty of contempt of court under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, at paragraph Nos.23 and 25 as under, viz., “23. Thus, in this Contempt Petition, this Court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the order alleged to have flouted. As the report of the Advocate-Commissioner is supporting the contentions of the petitioner and his counsel about the violations committed by the respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to punish the respondent under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for violation of orders of this Court and direct her to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- for each violation committed by her on the above dates from 26.02.2023 onwards to till date. The respondent is also directed to furnish a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as security for future compliance of the orders of this Court within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If she fails to comply the same, she is liable to be punished with simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 24. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed holding the respondent guilty of the contempt of the orders of this Court and directing her to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- for each violation committed by her on the above dates from 26.02.2023 onwards to till date. 24. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed holding the respondent guilty of the contempt of the orders of this Court and directing her to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- for each violation committed by her on the above dates from 26.02.2023 onwards to till date. As the report of the Advocate-Commissioner would disclose that more than 60 sessions were conducted till date, the respondent- contemnor is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand) for violating the orders passed by this Court and the respondent is also directed to furnish a bond of Rs.2,00,000 in favour of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as security for future compliance of the orders of this Court within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If she fails to comply the same, she is liable to be punished with simple imprisonment for a period of six months.” 6. Aggrieved, the instant Contempt Appeal has been filed by the appellant (wife). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the chart reflecting the details of on-line and physical visitation rights on the various dates and contended that the said details itself would show that there was no willful disobedience on the part of appellant as regards the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No.2350 of 2023, dated 20.02.2025. She further contended that it was due to verbal abuse and mannerism under which the respondent was behaving had caused great inconvenience to the child, and which had made the child reluctant to cooperate with the respondent during visitation mostly because of abnormal attitude and behavior on the part of respondent. She further contended that respondent (husband) had been filing numerous applications to create undue pressure and to complicate the life of appellant, and to also ensure that the appellant do not have a peaceful life and to grapple with series of court proceedings and cases instituted by the respondent. She further contended that the respondent had been making obnoxious allegations and contentions against the appellant, and had been maligning the image of appellant at every forum only with an intention to tarnish the image of appellant and to bring destruction to him, and therefore contended that the contempt proceedings was initiated by the respondent only with the aforesaid motive. 8. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the above contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that it was in fact the appellant who is creating all sorts of hurdles in the course of respondent availing visitation rights; the appellant had been always non-cooperative in the course of availing visitation right by the respondent; and the appellant used to poison the mind of child against respondent as and when respondent wanted to avail visitation right. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the visitation time was the only occasion where the respondent was having access to speak to the child, and the visitation right was getting hampered because of adverse conduct on the part of appellant which led to filing of instant contempt case before this Court; the learned Single Judge which is seized of the contempt proceedings found the appellant herein guilty and passed orders after thorough verification and enquiry of the facts and circumstances of case; and therefore, prayed that the order under challenge in the instant appeal does not warrant any interference by this Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the records, what needs to be appreciated from the facts narrated above is that the learned Single Judge of this High Court had passed order in Civil Revision Petition No.291 of 2022, dated 04.03.2022, after considering the difficulties that were faced by the parties during on-line visitation, physically as well as virtually, on every working Monday and Wednesday between 03:00 P.M. till 05:00 P.M. at the premises of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. The greatest inconvenience was to the child whose studies would have got affected. The greatest inconvenience was to the child whose studies would have got affected. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that, since it is the respondent-father who had already been enjoying on-line visitation rights on every Sunday between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon by virtue of the order dated 30.11.2020 in I.A.No.981 of 2020, modified the earlier order and granted physical visitation rights to the respondent-father on every working Saturday between 01:00 P.M. to 05:00 P.M., as and when he was available in India; and whenever the respondent-father was out of India, the visitation rights was fixed through video-conferencing as per the earlier order dated 30.11.2020 in I.A.No.981 of 2020 where the visitation rights were granted to the respondent-father on every Sunday between 11:00 A.M.to 12:00 P.M. 11. It appears that from the contentions put forth on either side and from a perusal of the pleadings that are attached to the present Contempt Appeal, the fight between the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) and the differences that cropped up between the two are creating problems in the course of execution of impugned order under challenge in its proper perspective. Another aspect which is revealed from the submissions made by learned counsel on either side is that there is a blame put on either side so far as interfering with the system on which they were having, i.e., the video- conferencing facility which is causing abrupt interruptions to the visitation right. The instant appeal and the contempt proceedings revolve around visitation right of the respondent-father with the child. It is the welfare of the child which is paramount so far as the court is concerned and at the same time what also has to be borne in mind is that there should not be a situation created by either of spouses which would sever the relationship of either of them. 12. It is the welfare of the child which is paramount so far as the court is concerned and at the same time what also has to be borne in mind is that there should not be a situation created by either of spouses which would sever the relationship of either of them. 12. Therefore, this Bench is of the opinion that, in the factual backdrop of the case so as to strike a balance between welfare of the child and also the relationship between either of the spouses with the child, ends of justice would be met if the visitation right which was otherwise granted by the Trial Court vide dated 30.11.2020 in I.A.No.981 of 2020 can be modified in the following manner, viz., (i) Firstly, there shall be only visitation right available with the respondent-father with the child on every Saturday instead of on Saturdays and Sundays. The timing of the visitation shall be on every Saturday of the month except second Saturday. The timing of visitation right would be between 02:30 P.M. to 05:30 P.M. The venue for the visitation right shall be the video-conference room located in the office of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, High Court Premises, Hyderabad. The visitation right shall be under the supervision of the Administrative Officer or any other officer of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority in the absence of Administrative Officer. During the proceedings of Video-Conferencing, the appellant (wife) shall not be permitted to remain in the Video-Conferencing room, but she may be entitled to remain in the premises of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority. The Administrative Officer of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority shall make all necessary arrangements in this regard. 13. During the course of hearing to-day, we had asked the learned counsel for the appellant whether the respondent (husband) has a plan to visit Hyderabad so as to consider his request for physical visitation right that he intends to avail. Upon speaking to the respondent (husband), learned counsel for the appellant (wife) submitted that as per the version of respondent (husband) for the next eight to ten months he would not be able to leave Patna where he resides as he has to take care of many things at the domestic front on account of recent passing away of his father. Therefore, as of now, this Court is not making any observation so far as availment of physical visitation by the respondent (husband) is concerned. However, as and when the respondent (husband) wants to have a physical visitation he may do so by moving an appropriate application before the concerned Family Court where the GWOP.No.27 of 2020 is pending between the parties. Upon such filing an appropriate application before the concerned Family Court, the concerned Family Court may consider the same as has been done in the instant Contempt Appeal and choose an entirely different location for granting physical visitation right to the respondent (husband); and if required, the video-conference room located in the office of the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, High Court Premises, Hyderabad, can be used for the same. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, and considering the peculiar factual backdrop under which the contempt proceedings stood initiated and decided, we do not want to precipitate the matter further except by strictly imposing the conditions put forth by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.02.2025 in C.C.No.2350 of 2023. Accordingly, the order dated 20.02.2025 in C.C.No.2350 of 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside. The Contempt Appeal stands allowed. No costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.