THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4414 & 4415 OF 2009 DATED: 22.03.2011 C.R.P.No.4414 of 2009: Between: C.K.Murthy & another. .... PETITIONERS And Minati Chitturi & another. .... RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.4415 of 2009: Between: Anil Krishna Chitturi. .... PETITIONER And Minati Chitturi & another. .... RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.4414 of 2009 is directed against the order, dated 01.06.2009, in I.A.No.402 of 2009 in O.P.No.388 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein seeking visiting rights, is allowed, permitting the petitioners herein, who are the paternal grand parents of Anya, aged one year four months, to visit the child twice in a month on every second Sunday and fourth Sunday between 11.00 and 4.00 p.m; on any festival day and during summer vacation on all Sundays pending disposal of the O.P. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.4415 of 2009 is directed against the order, dated 02.06.2009, in I.A.No.110 of 2009 in O.P.No.650 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, seeking a direction to the respondents to deposit the passport and visa of the minor child, was ordered directing the respondents not to move the minor child-Anya beyond territorial jurisdiction or the Hyderabad city pending disposal of the O.P. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. As the two matters are interrelated and arising out of the same matrimonial dispute, they are being disposed of by this common order. 5. 1st respondent in C.R.P.No.4414 of 2009 is the wife of the 2nd respondent. Petitioners are the parents of the 2nd respondent-husband and grand parents of the minor child-Anya, who was aged one year four months by the date of filing of the said application. The request of the petitioners for visiting rights was in fact granted by the Family Court, permitting them to visit the child twice in a month on the second and fourth Sundays between 11.00 and 4.00 p.m. besides granting permission to visit her on any festival day and during Summer vacation on all Sundays. Petitioners being the grand parents and their request for visiting the child having been granted by the Family Court in the manner stated in the order, there cannot be any further grievance for the petitioners in the matter of visiting the child. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference. 6. Regarding C.R.P.No.4415 of 2009, petitioner- husband sought a direction to the 1st respondent-wife to deposit the passport of the child into Court apprehending that the 1st respondent may take the child away crossing the border of the country. 1st respondent-wife in her counter stated that she has no intention of leaving the country. Having regard to the tender age of the child and also in view of the above statement in the counter, the Family Court felt that there is no need to surrender or deposit the passport and visa of the child. The Family Court further directed the respondent not to move the child-Anya beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Hyderabad city pending disposal of the O.P. There cannot also be any further grievance for the petitioner-husband in that regard inasmuch as the direction given by the Family Court ensures the presence of the child within the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the O.P. 7. It is stated that two other O.Ps for grant of dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights are also pending. Having regard to the fact that the petitions are filed in the year, 2008, the learned Judge, Family Court is directed to make necessary endeavour to dispose of the four O.Ps at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd March, 2011. Tsy