LexKIRAN RAJU PENUMACHA versus TEJUSWINI CHOWDHURY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 802 : 2025 INSC 358 Kiran Raju Penumacha v. Tejuswini Chowdhury (Civil Appeal No. 3842 of 2025) 17 March 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the petition for modification of the decree regarding the custody of the child filed by the respondent-mother and the execution petition filed by the appellant-father should be heard together or whether the execution petition should proceed irrespective of the pendency of the modification petition. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act – ss.13-B, 26 – Appellant-father and respondent-mother of a minor child got divorce by mutual consent – Respondent-mother was granted the permanent custody of the minor son and the appellant-father was granted interim custody during the weekends – The appellant alleges that respondent terminated all contacts between him and his son – Appellant filed E.P. No.7 of 2023 in O.P. No.421 of 2021 before the Family Court – The Family Court passed various orders directing respondent to send the minor son to appellant for the weekends – In response to which, respondent filed application in O.P. No.421 of 2021 and sought modification of decree pertaining to interim custody of the minor son during weekends with appellant – The Family Court allowed E.P. No.7 of 2023 and appointed advocate commissioner to execute decree – The said order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court – The High Court remanded the matter back to the Family Court with a direction to decide E.P. No.7 of 2023 * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 803 Kiran Raju Penumacha v. Tejuswini Chowdhury afresh and I.A. No.865 of 2023 strictly in accordance with law – Correctness: Held: The matter needs fresh consideration – The impugned Judgment is not interdicted – During the interregnum period, the father cannot be totally deprived of the company of the minor son – Taking a cue from the various interim orders passed by the Family Court relating to the modalities of the custody of the minor son, it is directed that till the time the Trial Court decides the modification petition and the execution petition filed by appellant, the father would have visitation rights from 04:00 PM to 06:00 PM on every Sunday – The matter is remanded back to the Family Court with a direction to conclude the matter expeditiously – If the respondent- mother were to obstruct the implementation of the arrangement in any manner whatsoever, it will be open for the appellant-father to apprise this Court of the same – In such eventuality, necessary consequences in law, including coercive measures, would follow. [Paras 16, 18, 19] Case Law Cited Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan [2020] 1 SCR 417 : (2020) 3 SCC 67 – relied on. Amyra Dwivedi (Minor) through her mother, Pooja Sharma Dwivedi v. Abhinav Dwivedi [2020] 4 SCR 687 : (2021) 4 SCC 698; Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu [2008] 11 SCR 1111 : (2008) 9 SCC 413; Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2017] 7 SCR 281 : (2017) 8 SCC 454 – referred to. List of Acts Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. List of Keywords Modification of Decree; Execution Petition; Custody of Child; Interim Custody; Permanent Custody; Welfare and Well-being of the Child; Best Interest of the Child; Parens Patriae Jurisdiction; Guardian of Minor; Physical Comforts; Moral & Ethical Values; Child's Inclination; Visitation Rights; Hearing Together; Remand; Mutual Consent Divorce. 804 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3842 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in F.C.A. No. 19 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Raavi Yogesh Venkata, Ms. Twinkle Rathi, Kotte Venkata Pawan Kumar, Ms. Thithiksha Padmam. Advs. for the Respondent: Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Abhik C., Karan Kapoor, Pranjal Abrol, Vikramaditya Chauhan, Abhishek Gautam, Nikhil Parikshith. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the Final Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2024 in Family Court Appeal No.19 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), by which the appeal filed by the Respondent has been allowed settin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.