THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.4769 of 2009 Date: 21.12.2009 Between: Smt. Kavitha Duggal Boppana, Masab tank, Hyderabad. And Sri Ranidra Boppana, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP No.4769 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 29.9.2009 passed in O.P.No.941 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the custody of the minor child was given to the petitioner from 1.10.2009 to 4.10.2009. Civil Revision Petition came to be admitted on 6.11.2009. Despite notice being served on the respondent, he did not choose to enter appearance either in person or though a counsel. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. The petitioner filed I.A.No.633 of 2009 seeking the following relief:- “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is, therefore prayed that pending disposal of the above OP, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant interim custody of our minor son Master Mihiran, born on 31/10/2002 to the petitioner herein and pas such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice.” The respondent resisted the application by filing counter. The learned Judge, Family Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the parties, directed the respondent-father to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner-mother from 1.10.2009 to 4.10.009. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order in I.A.No.633 of 2009 in O.P.No.941 of 2009 which reads as hereunder:- “Both parties are directed to follow the order without causing any inconvenience to the child in any manner and act according to the intention of the child during the period of interim custody. Child shall be allowed to talk to his father through phone during the period from 1.10.2009 to 4.10.2009 whenever the child wants to talk to his father. Both the spouses are further directed not to deprive of the child for exercising his right in enjoying the love and affection of the parents.” It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner sought interim custody of the minor child pending the O.P and whereas the learned Judge of the Family Court granted interim custody only for four days without indicating anything with regard to the custody of the minor child for the rest of the period, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge of Family Court needs to be modified making the order of interim custody of the child with the petitioner pending disposal of the O.P. As seen from the order impugned in the revision, the learned Judge, Family Court passed the order with regard to the interim custody of the child to the petitioner herein from 1.10.2009 to 4.10.2009, and whereas the petitioner sought interim custody of the minor child pending the O.P.No.941 of 2009. The learned Judge, Family Court neither rejected nor accepted the prayer sought for by the petitioner-wife with regard to the custody of the child pending the O.P. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition is set aside remanding the matter back to the Family Court to hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders with regard to the custody of the minor child pending the O.P.No.941 of 2009. The learned Judge, Family Court has to end over to dispose of the I.A as expeditiously as possible preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy Date:21.12.2009 Note: Furnish CC within one week. B/O mrb