IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CONTEMPT CASE No.998 of 2010 In F.C.A.M.P.No.225 of 2009 In F.C.A.No.110 of 2009 Between: Madugula Hari Gopal ..... PETITIONER AND Madugula Swarna Gowri .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CONTEMPT CASE No.998 of 2010 In F.C.A.M.P.No.225 of 2009 In F.C.A.No.110 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This contempt case is filed complaining that the respondent herein has willfully and wantonly violated the orders of this Court passed in FCAMP.No.225/2009 in FCA.No.110/2009 dated 24.02.2010. Heard both the counsel. The Family Court Appeal is filed by the petitioner herein against the orders in FCGOP.No.7/2008 dated 13.03.2009 on the file of the Family Court, Srikakulam in dismissing his application for the grant of interim custody of his minor son. The respondent herein is the divorced wife of the petitioner and she married again another person. Pending disposal of the appeal, this Court by the aforesaid order, permitted the petitioner herein to visit his minor son Madugula Nikhil Chaitanya twice in a month i.e. first and third Sundays between 4 to 6 p.m. at the residence of the respondent bearing House No.53-41-28, Opposite Shivalayam, KRM colony, Maddilapalem at Visakhapatnam. The said boy is aged about 11 years and he is studying 5th class. It is stated that the respondent has not allowed the petitioner to visit his son as ordered by this Court and moreover when he went to the residence of the respondent on 21.03.2010 to visit his son, the respondent created nuisance and threatened him if he insists to see his son and the entire incident was also recorded in video and stored the same in his computer. The respondent is present before this Court and stated that she never objected the petitioner to see his minor child, as per the orders of this Court. She further stated that in fact, the petitioner himself created nuisance at the time of his visiting her house and due to which, the house owner asked her to vacate the premises and therefore, she vacated the said premises and now she has shifted her residence from Visakhapatnam to C/o.G.Suri Appalanaidu, Venkateswara Colony, Patharlapalle, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District and she has no objection for petitioner to visit his son at her above residence as per the orders of this Court. She stated that she has not violated the orders of this Court and she tenders unconditional apology for not receiving the notice issued by this Court in this contempt case. Having regard to the facts of the case, and in view of the undertaking given by the respondent, as above, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 27.09.2010 Dsr