Noting ‘parallel relief’, Telangana High Court cancels order allowing man to visit his child

The court noted that the husband had mentioned the pending divorce proceedings and the earlier consent order in the main guardianship petition, but these were not disclosed in the affidavit accompanying his interim visitation application.

Wife challenged parallel visitation proceedings

The couple married in February 2017 and had a daughter in December 2020. Matrimonial disputes later arose, following which the husband filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty before the family court in Delhi. A consent order in May 2025 permitted him to meet the child for one hour on alternate Sundays at the woman’s residence in Hyderabad.

Justices K Lakshman and K Sujana took note of the husband’s submission that he would not press the visitation rights sought in the Delhi proceedings.

Subsequently, the husband filed a guardianship petition before the family court in Hyderabad, seeking custody of the minor daughter. Along with it, he sought interim visitation rights and permission to take the child out during weekends, festivals and school vacations. The family court allowed the application on April 2 and directed weekly one-hour meetings under the supervision of both parties’ counsel and CCTV surveillance.

The wife challenged the order before the high court, alleging that the husband had pursued parallel remedies despite the earlier consent visitation order in the Delhi divorce proceedings. She also alleged that he had threatened her through WhatsApp messages by relying on the subsequent family court order.

Earlier order not considered: Order

The high court noted that although the husband had mentioned the pending divorce proceedings and the earlier consent order in the main guardianship petition, these facts were not disclosed in the affidavit accompanying his interim visitation application. The family court failed to consider this aspect while passing the order.

The court also took note of the husband’s submission that he would not press the visitation rights sought in the Delhi proceedings and would take appropriate steps there. In view of this undertaking and the relevant circumstances, the court held that the disputed visitation order required reconsideration.

Consequently, the court set aside the Hyderabad family court’s order and remanded the interim visitation application for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. It directed the family court to decide the application afresh within 30 days. It did not make a final determination on the father’s visitation rights.