Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27005 (AP)

MUTTE @ LOKAM ANUSHA v. LOKAM SUMANTH

CRP/3562/2025 · 2026-01-07

R Raghunandan Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010671032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3562/2025 Between: 1. MUTTE @ LOKAM ANUSHA, W/O.LOKAM SUMANTH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.11-43/A, NEAR RAM HOSPITAL, TADEPALLI ROAD, TADEPALLI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. LOKAM SUMANTH, S/o.Lomak Satyanarayana, aged about 34 years, Rep.by his G.P.A Holder Lokam Satyanarayana, S/o.Late L.Venkateswara Rao, aged about 68 years, R/o.H.No.1-10-108/1, Road No.8E, Dwarkapuram, Dilshuk Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the Docket Order dt:11-07-2025 in I.A.No. 1952 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No. 782 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Principal District Judge at Guntur, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. HABIBULLA SHAIK 3 The Court made the following order: The respondent herein filed G.W.O.P.No.782 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Guntur for custody of his minor daughter, who is in the custody of the petitioner herein. Needless to say, the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband. 2. Apart from this, the respondent had also filed I.A.No.1952 of 2024 for grant of Interim Custody to the G.P.A holder of the respondent, weekly twice, until disposal of the main petition to enable this G.P.A to make video calls to the respondent and showing minor ward to the respondent. The G.P.A holder is the father of the respondent. 3. The learned Principal District Judge, Guntur by Order dated 11.07.2025 had partly allowed the petition with G.P.A holder of respondent is permitted to take minor to the place at the choice of both parties on every Sunday in between 10.00 A.M to 2.00 P.M and to permit the respondent to see minor ward by way of Video Calls. 3. Apart from this, certain other ancestral property shall also given. 4. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner has moved this Court. 5. Sri Gangadhar Chamarthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contends that the respondent and his family members, are interpreting the present Order to mean that they should be given custody of the child on every day and that the respondent should be able to see the child every day. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contended that the petitioner is being harassed by respondent and his family for such custody 4 on daily basis and the same is not permissible. He would also submit that the respondent has filed a memo contending that the petitioner was not complying with the directions of the Trial Court even though there has been no violation of the Order. 6. Sri Habibhulla Shaik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner has not been complying with the directions and has been creating various hurdles in the child being handed over to the G.P.A of the respondent. 7. The rival submission makes it clear that the complaint is regarding the compliance with the directions of the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur. These are issues which need to be placed before the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur and cannot be the basis on which there can be any amendment or modification of the Order. 8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is closed leaving it open to both the parties to place their specific compliance before the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J CMK/SSA 08.01.2026