Monagari Veeramani , Praharshini v. Monagari Yadagir

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.252 of 2015 Date : 13-3-2015 Between :

Monagari Veeramani @ Praharshini .. Petitioner And Monagari Yadagir and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Venkateswarlu Sanisetty for Ms. K. Parvathi Devi Counsel for respondents : --

The Court made the following :

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 18-62014 I.A.No.1372 of 2013 in O.P.No.429 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

I have heard Mr. Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. As the ill-luck would have it, the husband of the petitioner who is also the son of the respondents herein, died at a very young age in an accident leaving behind his widow-the petitioner, the parents-the respondents and a little minor son. It appears, with the passing away of the petitioner's husband, disputes erupted between the petitioner on the one side and the respondents on the other leading to the latter filing O.P.No.429 of 2013 in the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, for visitation rights. The respondents have also filed I.A.No.1372 of 2013 for conferring visitation rights on them once a week pending the O.P. After hearing both the sides, the Family Court has allowed the said application by permitting the respondents to visit their grandson at Venkateswara Swamy Temple on every Sunday from 4.30 p.m to 6.00 p.m. This order is assailed in this revision petition.

In my opinion, the permission granted by the lower Court to the respondents, who have lost their son, to share affection with their grandson cannot be said to be either unreasonable or inequitable. On the contrary, the grieving respondents need some solace by sharing their love and affection with their grandchild at the evening of their lives. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. However, if the petitioner feels that dropping the child at the place indicated by the lower Court on every Sunday by her causes hardship to her, she can file an appropriate application before the lower Court to vary the order under revision to the extent of directing the respondents to take the child from the petitioner's house and drop him again at the petitioner's house at the end of the visitation hours.

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.311 of 2015 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 13-3-2015 AM