Telangana High Court
Pattan Arshiya vs Shaik Vaseem Akram on 4 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1266 of 2024
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 02.01.2024 passed in
I.A.No.781 of 2023 in G.W.O.P.No.11 of 2023 by the learned
Judge, Principal Family Court, Secunderabad, the present
Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the
mother of minor son by name Nihaaz Ain Shaik, filed a
petition under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking ad-
interim custody of her child, alleging that she was subjected
to harassment, mental agony, and dowry demands by her
husband and his family. She claimed that despite her efforts
to lead a happy marital life, her husband and in-laws
continued to torment her, forcing her to leave the marital
home and seek refuge with her parents. However, the
respondent-husband countered these allegations, asserting
that the marriage was arranged and dowry-free. He claimed
that the petitioner was disobedient, frequently picked
quarrels, and made unacceptable demands, causing him and
SKS,J
his family immense distress. Despite his efforts to reconcile
and persuade her to return home, the petitioner refused and
instead filed a false dowry harassment case against him. The
trial court after hearing both sides, vide order dated
02.01.2024, observed that the minor child was happy and
well-cared for in the custody of the respondent. The trial Court
noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated sufficient good
faith or taken earlier steps to regain custody of her child.
Consequently, the court dismissed the plea of the petitioner
for interim custody, allowing her visitation rights with the
child every second Saturday and Sunday instead. Aggrieved
by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Syed Ahmed Ali,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the trial Court is
bad in law and vitiated by material irregularities and that the
petitioner, being the mother of the minor child Master Nihaaz
Ain Shaik, aged 3 years and 10 months, is entitled to the
child's custody. It is further submitted that the respondent-
SKS,J
husband took custody of the child forcefully, and despite the
complaints of the petitioner, the authorities failed to take
action. The trial Court failed to appreciate the facts on record
and ignored the respondent's admission of taking the child
away forcefully.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
medical records of the petitioner, which were not placed before
the trial court, clearly show that she had undergone abortions
due to health issues, contrary to the claims of the respondent.
He further contended that the petitioner, as the natural
guardian, is entitled to the child's custody, and the actions of
the respondent are driven by ill intentions. The petitioner is
willing and able to provide love, care, and affection to the
minor child with the support of her parents. Therefore, she
prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by
allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the minor child is unwilling to go with the
mother, as he is scared of her. The counsel pointed out that
the petitioner had voluntarily left the company of the
respondent and has been living separately, while the
SKS,J
respondent has been taking care of the child. The child has
been attending a nearby school and has shown no interest in
visiting his mother, even during the two designated visitation
days. The counsel argued that granting custody to the
petitioner would not be in the child's best interests and prayed
for the dismissal of the civil revision petition.
7. Considering the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and the a perusal of the material available on record,
the trial court granted the mother visitation rights every
second Saturday and Sunday in an interim application i.e.,
I.A.No.781 of 2023 filed in the ongoing Guardianship and
Wards Proceedings (GWOP) initiated by the husband.
Notably, the petitioner did not file any petition for visitation
rights or guardianship of the minor child before filing the
GWOP. Since 26.03.2023, the minor child has been in the
custody of the father. The primary contention of the petitioner
is that, as the age of the child is three years and ten months,
the mother should be the guardian, as per the Mohammed
case law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed vs.
Nisha held that in cases where the child is below 7 years old,
the mother is the natural guardian, and her custody is in the
SKS,J
best interest of the child. However, the trial Court dismissed
the petition without considering the judgment, granted only
visitation rights for two days. The main GWOP is still
pending, and the trial court will decide the guardianship
issue. This petition sought interim custody, but the trial
court granted visitation rights instead, considering the age of
the child and the need for gradual adjustment. In light of the
submissions made by the petitioner, the visitation rights are
modified to every Saturday from 2 pm to 5 pm at the
previously designated venue.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed
setting aside the order dated 02.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.781
of 2023 in G.W.O.P.No.11 of 2023 by the learned Judge,
Principal Family Court, Secunderabad. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.02.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. ORDER IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1266 of 2024
Date: 04.02.2025
SAI
