Telangana High Court
Kavali Bheemaiah vs Smt. Voggani Padma Anitha on 19 February, 2025
Author: T.Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.571 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant appearing through Hybrid
Mode and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order and
decree dt.04.10.2024 in G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2023 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Narayanpet, whereby the Court below had dismissed the
injunction application seeking custody of the minor child (son).
3. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Court below. The
appellant contends that he has worked as Principal and retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation; that he is now practicing
as an Advocate; that he is in a better position to take care of the minor
son, while the respondent is eking out her livelihood by doing household
job and is not in a position to provide better living conditions to his son;
and that the Court below without considering the above aspect has
dismissed the underlying application filed under Section 25 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is filed for grant of permanent custody of
minor son.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
would submit that though the petitioner on retiring from service on
attaining the age of superannuation, has got himself enrolled as an
Advocate and is now claiming that he is in a better position to maintain
the minor son than the respondent, but did not pay even a rupee, and
committed default in payment of the maintenance amount granted.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the
appellant herein is seeking custody of the minor child only to take care of
him in his old age but not out of love and affection; and as such, prays
for dismissal of the underlying application.
6. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
7. A perusal of the order of the Court below would show that the
Court below while dismissing the O.P., had taken note of the age of the
appellant herein as 64 years and recorded that in that age, the appellant
could not control the minor son comparing with the respondent, whose
age might have been 46-47 years.
8. Though on behalf of the respondent, it is contended that her age is
wrongly recorded as 46-47, while she is only around 35-36, it is to be
noted that notwithstanding the said difference of age between the
appellant and the respondent as noted in the impugned order, the fact
that the boy is a minor and is required to be taken care by the mother at
this age, while the appellant, who claims himself to be a practicing
Advocate, would not be able to devote much time for the well being of
the child on account of his professional work.
9. Thus, this Court is of the view that the order of the Court below in
refusing to grant permanent custody of the minor child to the appellant
herein does not call for any interference.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No
order as to costs.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:19.02.2025
_________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
GJ
