THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.905 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order of dismissal dated 25.02.2011, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.867 of 2010 in O.P.No.1457 of 2010 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of injunction restraining the respondent-mother from taking away the minor children from the custody of the petitioner-father without following due process of law. 2. The material on record shows that the parties were granted divorce on 06.11.2003 by the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Rockland. While passing the decree of divorce, the said Court granted supervisory visitation to the petitioner and imposed a restriction on the respondent not to move the children namely Vidudala Arjun, aged 16 years and Vidudala Ashwin Chandra, aged 11 years, to India, but contrary to the said orders, she brought the children to India and admitted in the local schools. Later, the petitioner left his job in USA and returned to India. He states that because of the ill treatment of the respondent, the children are living with him since 30.10.2010 and they are not interested in joining their mother, as such, he filed O.P.No.1457 of 2010 under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act before the Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking permanent custody of the minor children. He also filed the above said I.A., for grant of injunction. The Court below having considered the material on record, dismissed the same vide order impugned, against which, the petitioner filed the present revision. 3 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, who appeared in person. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below failed to appreciate that the respondent had violated the orders of US Court by shifting the children to India. She also submitted that the Court below as well as this Court interviewed the children, who expressed their willingness to live with their father. 5. On the other hand, the respondent contended that while granting divorce, US Court gave custody of the minor children to her with the supervisory visitation to the petitioner with prior appointment and the said Court also directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the minor children, but he absconded and committed default in payment of the same. She further contended that the petitioner had kidnapped the minor children on 29.10.2010 and therefore, she lodged a complaint before the police against him. She submitted that there is no order prohibiting her to visit India along with the children. She also submitted that if the children are with the custody of the petitioner, they might be addicted to vices. 6. On 24.05.2011, when the matter is taken up for hearing, this Court interviewed the minor children in the Chambers. At the time of interview, it was ascertained that both of them are not willing to live with their mother and they stated that they are prosecuting their studies happily with their father, and this Court granted interim suspension for a period of eight weeks and the same was further extended to six weeks. 7. Though the US Court granted custody of minor children to the respondent, now, as the minor children expressed their willingness to live with their father, in the interview held in Chambers of this Court, I deem it appropriate that the custody of the minor children be given to the petitioner-father till O.P.No.1457 of 2010 is disposed of. Further, the respondent-mother is permitted to visit her children on every Saturday and Sunday for a period of three hours on each day. The Court below shall dispose of O.P.No.1457 of 2010 expeditiously, within a period of four weeks from today, on merits, uninfluenced by the observations, if any made herein. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.06.2011 sj