1 (RNT,J & MRK,J CC. NO.482 OF 2026) APHC010039552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE NO: 482 OF 2026 Between: 1. Polagani Balaji Karthik,, S/o Ashok Kumar, Aged 37 years. Pvt. Employee, R/o.D.No. 17/124, Edepalli, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Parinkayala Vanajakshi Polagani Vanajakshi, W/o Balaji Karthik, D/o P.Subrameswara Rao, Aged 38 years, R/o. D.No. 16/203-5, near Tagore Shamiyana House, Deputy Tahsildar, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...Respondent Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to punish the Respondent for willfully, deliberately, negligently, wantonly and intentionally flouting the Condition 10 (iii) of the order passed by this Honble Court in I.A.No.1/2025 in C.M.A.No.176 of 2023 dated 07-01-2026 under Sections to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and 10 pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI The Court made the following order: 2 (RNT,J & MRK,J CC. NO.482 OF 2026) JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) This contempt case has been filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondent-mother in implementing the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.176 of 2023. 2. The direction contained in paragraph No.10(iii) of the order dated 07.01.2026 reads as follows: “On 15.01.2026, the appellant-father is permitted to take his son for outing during his convenient period, but by evening, he shall handover the custody of the son to the respondent mother at her house. If respondent wants to accompany, she is at liberty.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction was not complied with by the respondent-mother, contending that she did not send the son along with the father for the outing. 4. The respondent-mother, however, has filed her response stating that the son himself expressed his unwillingness to go out with the father and that she neither obstructed nor restricted the movement of the son with the father. 3 (RNT,J & MRK,J CC. NO.482 OF 2026) 5. It is evident that from the said direction, the appellant-father was permitted to take the son out for an outing. However, as submitted by the respondent-mother, the son himself was unwilling to accompany the father. In such circumstances, we do not find any disobedience of the order dated 07.01.2026 on the part of the respondent-mother, in whose custody the minor child has been residing. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present case and accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date :11.09.2026. RPD. 4 (RNT,J & MRK,J CC. NO.482 OF 2026) 110 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM (DISMISSED) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 482 OF 2026 Date: 11.09.2026 RPD.