Telangana High Court
CC/1899/2025 of Smt Ruksar Fathima Vs Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani on 8 October 2026
case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of contempt of courts Ac1, 1971 to puniin the respondents for wilful disobedience of the final order of the High Court dated 30.06.2023 passed in C.R.P.No 1668 of 2023' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF
[ 33851
contempt case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of contempt of courts Ac1, 1971
to puniin the respondents for wilful disobedience of the final order of the High Court dated 30.06.2023 passed in C.R.P.No 1668 of 2023'
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CONTEMPT CASE Nos: 1899 & 36740F 2025
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1899 OF 2025
Between:
AND
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN
Gounsel for the Respondent: SRI M A K MUKHEED
Smt Ruksar Fathima, Wo Mohammed Tajuddin Hunani D/o Mohammed Saleem lsani, Age 3,1 years, occ Business All are Fl/o H No 94120 Quilla road Barkathpura Nizamabad.
Master Mohammed Murtaza' S/o Mohammed Tajuddin, Age 11 years'
Oci: Student staying at Kakatiya Public School All are R/o H No 94120 Quilla road BarkathPura Nizamabad.
Master Mohammed Ahmed Siraj, S/o Mohammed Tajuddin, Aged 9 years'
occ:StudentStayingatKakatiyaPublicschoolAllareRl/oHNo94120Quilla roadBarkathpuraNizamabadPetitionerNo2and3arethesonsofthe Petitioner No 1 and are minors as such they are represented by their natural mother/ guardian/Petitioner No 1.
...Petitioners / Respondents 1 to 3
Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani, S/o Late Mohammed Younus Hunani' Age 33
v"rii, o"", Buiiness, Rl/o H No 91367 opp to Quadriya Masjid Barkathpura Nizamabad.
... ResPondenUPetitioner
!-tE:3=t-EE!!F
=F
rF?F
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 367 4 OF 2025
Contempt Case flled under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
to punish the respondents for wilfully, deliberately, disobeying ard violating the Order of the High Court dated 30.06.2023 passed in C.R.P.No.1668 cf 2023.
Between:
Mr. Mohammed Tajuddin Hunani, S/o. Late Mohammed Younus Hunani Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business F/o. H.No.9-1-367, Opp. Quadriya Masjid, Barkathpura, Nizamabad, Telangana State.
...Petitioner
AND
Smt. Ruksar Fatima, W/o. Mohammed Tajuddin Hunrani D/o Saleem lsani, aged about 31 years, Occ. House wife, Nizamabad.
Mohammed
Barkathpura,
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M A K MUKHEED
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI{GANA
AT ITYDERABN)
THE HOI{OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CONTEMPT CASE No.1899 of2o.25
CNR.No.HBHCO 1()3 13 1O2O25
&
CONTEMPT CASE No.3674 ot 2o25
CNR.No.HBHCO10483062025
DATE: O8.10.2O26
CONTEMPT CASE No.1899 of2o25
BETWEEN:
Smt. Ruksar Fathima and others
....petitioners
And
Mohammed Tajaddin Hunalt
...Respondent
CONTEMPT CASE IIo.3674 of 2o25
BETWEEN:
Mohammed Tajaddin Hunani
....petitioner
And
Smt. Ruksar Fathima
.. . . .Respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
Contempt Case No.1899 of 2025 has been frlcd by the wife and the children, whereas Contempt Case No.3672. of 2025 has been iiled by the husband, alleging violation cf the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1668 of 2023 by 1.he respective parties.
2. Heard Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, learrred counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - wife an,l Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - husband
3. The contention of the wife is that, as per the orders passed by this Court, the husband is entitled to take the children on every second Saturday at 1O:OO A.lv1. and shall return them to their mother by 05:00 P.M. on the same day. It was further directed that the husband shall not make any attempt to take the children beyond the jurisdictiorL of the Court and that any such attempt would entail penal crtnsequences. According to the wife, the husband has been takin6l the children directly from their school, in violation of the directions issued by this Court.
g@ErsqictEB€D'
4. On the other hand, the contention of the husband is that the wife has been refusing to hand over the children to him in terms of the orders passed by this Court, compelling him to frle Contempt Case No.3674 of 2025.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, both parties have agreed to strictly abide by the directions issued by this Court in C.R.P.No.1668 of 2023, without giving rise to any further disputes in this regard.
6. Recording the aforesaid submissions made by both parties, both Contempt Cases are closed. Both parties are directed to strictly adhere to the conditions imposed by this Court in C.R.P.No. 1668 of 2023. There shali be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed. //TRUE COPYII '1 . One CC to Sri M A K Mukheed, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD Copies SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, ABK @l
HIGH GOURT DATED: 0811012026
COMMON ORDER
CG Nos: 1899 & 3674 OF 2025 CLOSING BOTH THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS 1t\i-- J r;r
R o k a' dj a- ) ) 0 g 0812026 \ "'.' ,.c (\L' (cVx 0 "{