Telangana High Court
Baduga Chandrakala vs Arragunta Ravinder on 14 August, 2024
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.2406 of 2024
ORDER :
The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner
herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the
order dated 11.07.2024 in I.A.No.1527 of 2023 in GWOP.No.40 of
2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, 'the impugned order').
2. Heard Mr.K. Chaithanya, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.J. Dheeraj Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Court below allowed the
petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 12 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, 'the Act') and granted
interim custody of the minor child baby, viz., Arragunta Eshanvi
to the respondent herein. However, it granted visitation rights to
the petitioner herein and also overnight custody of the minor child
baby on alternate Saturday from 03:00 p.m. till 03:00 p.m. on
next Sunday.
4. Aggrieved, the present Revision has been filed by the
petitioner herein.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is
mother in law of the respondent, and grandmother of the minor
baby child of whose custody is in dispute. The daughter of the
petitioner (viz., Smt. Badugu Sarita) was married to the
respondent herein on 24.02.2018. Out of the said wedlock, baby
Arragunta Eshanvi was born on 11.12.2019. As such, today the
child is aged around 4 ½ years. Later, the wife of respondent died
of committing suicide on 28.03.2024. After death of wife of the
respondent (i.e., Smt. Badugu Sarita), the son of petitioner lodged
a complaint against the respondent before the Police Station,
Narsingi, and a case in Cr.No.351 of 2023 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC stood registered
against the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent was arrested
in the said crime and subsequently he was released on bail.
6. The petitioner meanwhile filed GWOP.No.40 of 2023 before
the Court below seeking custody of the minor child, i.e., Arragunta
Eshanvi, born to her daughter (wife) from out of the wedlock with
the respondent (husband).
7. Pending the above GWOP, the respondent filed a Habeas
Corpus petition before this Court vide Writ Petition No.19218 of
2023, seeking a direction to the 4th respondent therein to produce
the 5th respondent-minor baby (i.e., Arragunta Eshanvi) before
this Court and also for granting custody of the child to the
petitioner. Vide order dated 06.09.2023, a learned Division Bench
of this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the
respondent herein to pursue the GWOP pending before the Court
below. The High Court further held that since the petitioner, who
is the grandmother of the minor child, has custody of the child
and there was already an OP filed under the Act, the parties were
granted liberty to pursue their remedies in the above GWOP, i.e.,
the main O.P., seeking for interim custody and also that of
visitation rights. Thereafter, the respondent herein moved
I.A.No.1527 of 2023 before the Court below seeking for interim
custody of the minor child born to him from out of the marital
relationship with the daughter of petitioner herein (viz., Smt.
Badugu Sarita) on the ground that : (i) he is the biological father of
the minor child and also natural guardian; (ii) he had sufficient
financial stability and means to provide all basic comfort which
the minor child would otherwise need; and (iii) there was no
proper material to establish the financial stability so far as the
petitioner is concerned.
8. The said contentions of the respondent were opposed by the
petitioner herein on the ground that there was a criminal case
which has been lodged against the respondent (father of the minor
child) for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 of I.P.C., and
that the respondent was put in jail for some time before he was
released on bail. Further, the writ petition filed by the respondent
stood disposed of without any merit by this Court. It was the
further contention of the petitioner before the Court below that the
respondent (father) was in fact a man with loose character and
was having illicit relationship with other woman. Further, the
allegation that has been made in the above criminal case and
which was also part of the charge-sheet, was of a serious nature
and thus, in the given circumstances, it would not had been in the
interest of the child if the custody is to be given to the respondent
(husband).
9. The Court below, after due consideration of the submissions
made by either side, found that the respondent (father)
undoubtedly was the biological father of the minor child whose
custody has been sought and as such he was the natural
guardian of the minor child. In addition, the Court below has also
found that it is a case where the respondent (father) has been able
to show that he has got a good employment with a salary package
of more than Rs.15 lakh per annum. It was also taken note of by
the Court below that certain materials available on record would
also show that the couple, i.e., the respondent (father) and the
deceased wife, had been visiting various other places on tours and
thus had good family life. Further, it was also taken note of by the
Court below that the entire criminal case against the respondent
is based upon the alleged complaint made by the brother of the
deceased wife (i.e., Smt. Badugu Sarita) having died of committing
suicide. It was also taken note of by the Court below that the
petitioner herein, i.e., the grandmother of the minor child, has not
been able to show where she was permanently residing. Whereas
in the course of the pleadings it was reflected that she was
presently residing with one of her daughter and there was no
strong material to show so far as financial stability is concerned.
Therefore, keeping all these facts and circumstances in view, the
Court below granted interim custody of the minor child to the
respondent (father).
10. However, what is also necessary to be appreciated at this
juncture apart from granting interim custody to the respondent
(father), the petitioner (grand-mother) has been granted visitation
rights of the minor child for an overnight stay on every alternate
Saturday from 03:00 P.M. till next day, i.e., Sunday. This, in the
opinion of this Court, is an order where a balance has been struck
so far as custody of the minor child is concerned whereby interim
custody being given to the biological father who is otherwise the
natural guardian with sufficient means to provide the best of
comfort to the child and at the same time visitation rights being
provided to the petitioner (grandmother) on every alternate
Saturday for an overnight stay.
11. As regards the decision relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in the case of Nil Ratan Kundu vs. Abhijit
Kundu 1 is concerned, he vehemently canvassed that the said
judgment ought to have been properly considered by the High
Court. However, this Court is of the opinion that the views
expressed by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said
decision would be evident from paragraph No.82 of the said
judgment itself and the peculiar facts are those which have been
reflected in paragraph No.71, and which is unlike the facts in the
present case. That except, for the fact that in the instant case
admittedly there is a criminal case lodged against the respondent
(husband) for offences under Section 498-A and Section 306 of the
I.P.C. and that too which was alleged after the demise of the
deceased who died of committing suicide. Therefore, the facts in
the instant case are not similar in any manner to the case of Nil
(2008) 11 S.C.R. 1111
Ratan Kundu (supra). Therefore, the decision in Nil Ratan
Kundu (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts itself.
12. Another aspect which needs to be considered at this stage is
that the Court below has only considered the above I.A. so far as
interim custody is concerned. If the petitioner herein is able to
establish her case so far as the allegations leveled in the
complaint, or in the event if the criminal case which has been filed
against the respondent herein would stand decided and if he
would stand convicted, the learned Court below would
undoubtedly take the entire facts and the merits of the case and
then decide as to who should be given the custody of the minor
child, i.e., whether to the respondent (father) or to the petitioner
(grandmother). Therefore, these aspects would be taken care of
by the Court below after the evidence is recorded on both sides
both oral and documentary.
13. At this juncture, this Court does not find any strong case
made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for
interference to the order dated 11.07.2024 in I.A.No.1527 of 2023
in GWOP.No.40 of 2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Therefore, the
Revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
14. However, it goes without saying that since it is a case for
custody of the minor child, the Court below shall make all
endeavors in concluding the O.P. on its file as expeditiously as
possible.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 14.08.2024
Ndr
