Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1735 (TS)

Sundeep Pundamale Selvaraj v. Gowri Priyadarshini Sundeep, W/o. Sundeep Pundamale Selvaraj

2025-12-05

P.SAM KOSHY

body2025
ORDER : P. Sam Koshy, J. Heard Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.1909 & 2107 of 2025, C.C.No.2136 of 2025, and for the respondent in C.R.P.No.1918 of 2025; Mr. I.Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1918 of 2025, Mr. Vikram Ragi & Mr. I.Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for respondents in C.R.P.Nos.1909 & 2107 of 2025, and Ms. P. Venaga Gayathri Nikitha, learned counsel for the respondents in C.R.P.No.1918 of 2025. 2. These are four petitions between the same parties who are otherwise husband and wife by relation. The matter revolves around the custody and parenting of the child born from the wedlock between the petitioner / husband and respondent No.1 / wife. The minor child Master Aarav is aged around 7-8 years and is presently a student of 3 rd standard. 3. Of the four cases, three cases pertain to custody of the respondent No.2 and the visitation rights sought by the petitioner. 4. C.R.P.No.1909 of 2025 is one which has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 16.05.2025, in I.A.No.1188 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2024, passed by the Judge, Principal Family Court, Secunderabad. Vide the said impugned order; the Family Court dismissed the I.A.No.1188 of 2024 filed by the petitioner, the father of the child, seeking for an order of the Court to get the child readmitted to Oakridge International School, Gachibowli. 5. C.C.No.2136 of 2025 again is one which has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 07.08.2025, passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2107 of 2025. It was contended by the petitioner that respondent No.1 has committed contempt by not honoring the directions given by this Court whereby respondent No.1 was directed to ensure handing over the custody of the child to the petitioner. 6. C.R.P.No.2107 of 2025 is also preferred by the petitioner aggrieved of the order passed by the Judge, Principal Family Court, Secunderabad, in I.A.No.1189 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2024, decided on 16.05.2025. Vide the impugned order, the Family Court partly allowed the aforesaid I.A.No.1189 of 2024 by conferring the visitation rights only on few days of the month to him for meeting the child. Vide the impugned order, the Family Court partly allowed the aforesaid I.A.No.1189 of 2024 by conferring the visitation rights only on few days of the month to him for meeting the child. Whereas C.R.P.No.1918 of 2025 is filed by respondent No.1 aggrieved of the order of visitation rights conferred in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 16.05.2025, in I.A.No.1189 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2024. Thus, C.R.P.No.1918 of 2025 is nothing but a counter case filed by respondent No.1 questioning the same order that the petitioner has challenged in C.R.P.No.2107 of 2025. 7. Of these two C.R.Ps., in C.R.P.No.2107 of 2025 the petitioner is dissatisfied with the duration of visitation rights granted in a month to the petitioner and, in C.R.P.No.1918 of 2025, respondent No.1 is questioning the very granting of visitation rights to the petitioner. So far as C.R.P.No.1909 of 2025, the same has been filed aggrieved of the rejection of I.A.No.1188 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2024, whereby the petitioner challenged the action on the part of respondent No.1 in changing the school of the child to a new school. 8. The facts in nutshell are that the child born to the petitioner and respondent No.1 was pursuing his studies at Oakridge International School, Gachibowli. Meanwhile, since the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 got strained and they started living separately, respondent No.1 took the child and shifted him to another school namely Delhi Public School, Hyderabad. It is this shifting of the child from Oakridge International School to Delhi Public School is what the two spouses are fighting in C.R.P.No.1909 of 2025. 9. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the child up to now has been studying in which is one of the most premium and prestigious institution imparting education and the quality of education provided at the said institution is really worth for a child to study in one of the best atmospheres that could be provided. It was further contended if the child has been withdrawn, he would be missing all these facilities and infrastructure available at Oakridge International School, compared to the new school i.e. Delhi Public School. 10. It was further contended if the child has been withdrawn, he would be missing all these facilities and infrastructure available at Oakridge International School, compared to the new school i.e. Delhi Public School. 10. It was also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the environment and facilities at Oakridge International School are more conducive which ensures the welfare of the child, particularly with regard to his education and participation in extra-curricular activities, which may not be available as a matter of routine at Delhi Public School. It was also contended that since the child has been withdrawn from Oakridge International School and admitted in a new institution, he may experience adjustment difficulties and emotional pressure arising from the need to adapt to a new environment and make new friends, which could adversely his overall development and wellbeing. 11. It was lastly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since the new school in which the child has been admitted is an ordinary school, comparable to government village school. However, now that the petitioner is willing to meet the educational expenses of the child, it was urged that respondent No.1 should ensure that the child receives the best possible education with adequate infrastructure by securing his readmission to Oakridge International School. Further, the petitioner undertakes to meet all the expenses in this regard, rather than compelling the child to continue in an average or mediocre school. 12. The said contentions were opposed by the learned counsel for respondents on the ground that Delhi Public School where the child is now admitted, is also one of the premium schools all over India. Delhi Public School also is one of the best-known institutions in Hyderabad and has all the necessary infrastructure with respect to a normal child’s overall growth and the petitioner’s contention of Delhi Public School being just a mediocre or below average school is not correct. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that in fact a decision has been taken by the Family Court after considering all the pros and cons and having duly interacted with the child. 14. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that in fact a decision has been taken by the Family Court after considering all the pros and cons and having duly interacted with the child. 14. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, particularly taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the interaction that the Court with the child, the relief sought for by the petitioner vide I.A.No.1188 of 2024 was rightly refused and rejected by the Family Court and the Family Court also found that there was no scope of interference. Except for the oral contentions and allegations being leveled by the petitioner so far as the Delhi Public School not being a good school befitting the petitioner’s child to study and also considering the fact that it is not a case where the child has been, in spite of differences between the parties being forced to discontinue education, what is more important was the necessity in ensuring that the child’s education is not hampered. The child having already got an admission in another school i.e. Delhi Public School now should not be forced to again leave the institution and go elsewhere which is going to thereafter cause great inconvenience and difficulties for the child and would also cause more trauma and distress to the child’s mind. Thus, this Court is of the firm view that the order under challenge is not one which suffers from any perversity or error. 15. So far a C.C.No.2136 of 2025 is concerned, the same being filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 07.08.2025, however subsequent to the said date itself there have been subsequent directions issued by this Court so far as availing and enjoying of the visitation rights by the petitioner is concerned, and the latest order in terms of the Commissioner’s report is being ordered in its letter and spirit. In view of the same, this Court is of the firm view that C.C.No.2136 of 2025, as such has become infructuous and is accordingly closed and respondent No.1 stands discharged from the contempt proceedings. Nonetheless, this Court would not hesitate in observing that respondent No.1 must ensure that the order providing visitation rights to the petitioner should not be curtailed or interfered without any cogent and convincing reasons. Nonetheless, this Court would not hesitate in observing that respondent No.1 must ensure that the order providing visitation rights to the petitioner should not be curtailed or interfered without any cogent and convincing reasons. Rather, the directions those have been issued should be complied with in its letter and spirit. 16. So far as C.R.P.Nos.2107 & 1918 of 2025 are concerned, the first being filed by the petitioner and later by respondent No.1 both assailing the same order dated 16.05.2025, in I.A.No.1188 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2024, C.R.P.No.2107 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner dissatisfied with the visitation rights granted to him to meet his child only from second Friday to Sunday evening and on fourth Friday evening to Saturday evening. In addition, the petitioner was also granted to have the custody of the child on his birthday from 05:00 P.M. to 08:00 P.M. Likewise, C.R.P.No.1918 of 2025 is filed by respondent No.1 aggrieved of the aforesaid arrangement of visitation and the child being given to the petitioner on two weekends in a month. 17. According to the respondent No.1, the child does not want to be in company of his father, the petitioner, and the petitioner also does not treat the child well and is abusive in his behavior and also at times shouts and scolds the child. Therefore, annoyed by the same and also with a sense of great fear, the child does not go along with the petitioner. Thus, in the larger interests of child’s welfare, according to respondent No.1, the child should not be forced to be in company with the petitioner without there being any intimacy. 18. Having gone through the submissions advanced by both the sides and taking into consideration the proceedings that were drawn pending the instant four petitions before this Bench, it is found that because of the two spouses fighting at all levels the child was made a victim and also a tool for settling the scores. This Court for the last couple of months has via media had ordered for the petitioner to have the visitation rights on every Saturday and Sunday of the month and in order to ensure that the visitation rights go on smoothly, with the consent of the parties, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to keep a watch on the entire progress of the day during the visitation. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel representing either side as also the Advocate Commissioner present in the Court made a categorical statement that since things have neutralized a lot and the visitation as of now on every weekend is going on smoothly, there is far better relationship between the petitioner and the child, as of now compared to the initial period. This goes to show that there is a good rapo being built-up between the child and the petitioner and in times to come things would even improve further. The respondent No.1-wife, so also the petitioner-husband were present in the Court, both of whom have passed on the specific instructions to their respective Advocates that under no circumstances either of them want the relationship to be severed with the child so far as the other partner is concerned. This itself is a healthy indication where the respondent No.1-wife on one hand wants the child to have more and more healthier relationship with the petitioner. So also the petitioner is showing keen interest in the upbringing of the child and child’s welfare. 19. In the given factual context and the developments that have transpired, at this juncture this Court does not intend to further keep the present litigations before this Court pending any further. Rather, the three C.R.Ps. can be disposed of with a direction that the present arrangement of physical visitation being enjoyed by the petitioner on every Saturday and Sunday be continued until further orders. That only when the child has full confidence in his father i.e. the petitioner, and when he is ready to spare a weekend with his father, should the petitioner move an appropriate petition before the concerned Family Court and which the concerned Family Court shall take up and decide the same. Since the visitation rights are, as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner is going on smoothly, let such facility be extended on the birthday of the minor child and on festivals like Christmas in the month of December, Sankranthi in the month of January and Holi in the month of March. The venue also remains the same i.e. The Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, and on non-working days the venue would be DSL Virtue Mall, Uppal, Hyderabad, with the same Advocate Commissioner to continue until further orders. The venue also remains the same i.e. The Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, and on non-working days the venue would be DSL Virtue Mall, Uppal, Hyderabad, with the same Advocate Commissioner to continue until further orders. The Advocate Commissioner so appointed in the process shall facilitate the parties to have visitation facility undergo smoothly without any embarrassing situation being created on either side. 20. In the result:- a) C.R.P.Nos.1909, 1918, 2107 of 2025 are disposed of in terms of the directions and observations made in paragraph No.19 of this common order; and b) C.C.No.2136 of 2025 also stands closed in terms of the observations made in paragraph No.15 of this common order. 21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.