Telangana High Court
Venkateswara Rao Chintapalli vs Chintapalli Shreeyash Nivedit Rao on 3 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1453 of 2024
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in
I.A.No.331 of 2022 in F.C.O.P.No.59 of 2021 by the learned
Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Karimnagar, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed
I.A.No.331 of 2022 in F.C.O.P.No.59 of 2021 before the trial
Court seeking interim maintenance for them, the legitimate
children of the petitioner and his wife, Beeravelli @ Chintapalli
Deepthi. In the said petition it is stated that the parents of the
respondents were married on 19.05.2006, at Karimnagar, and
their children were born in India and the UK. The mother of
the respondents claims that despite her efforts to mediate, the
petitioner has refused to contribute to the children's
maintenance, education, and well-being. It is further stated
that the petitioner earns significantly, having acquired British
citizenship in October 2002 and working in the UK.
SKS,J
3. The petitioner filed counter in the said petition stating
that he has been paying £60,000 (approximately Rs.60 lakhs)
monthly for family maintenance in the UK. He claims that
despite his willingness to continue supporting the children,
his wife dislocated him from their family home. He also states
that he purchased properties worth over Rs.20 crores in the
name of his wife and provided her with gold and diamonds.
The petitioner further asserts that he is willing to bear the
education expenses of the children if they live with him, but
his wife refused. He claims that his wife works in the UK and
that there is no merit in the petition.
4. The trial Court has examined the evidence presented by
both parties, including Ex.A1 to A16 and Ex.B1 to B27. After
hearing both sides, vide order dated 03.01.2024 allowed the
petition with a direction to the petitioner that the respondent
shall pay interim monthly maintenance of Rs.2,12,500/- to
the respondents from 01.11.2021, until the disposal of
F.C.O.P.No.59 of 2021. The payment should be made on or
before the 5th of every month, preferably through direct
deposit into the bank account of the respondents. Further,
the respondents must file a memo providing their bank
SKS,J
account details to facilitate the deposit. The petitioner is also
required to pay the arrears of interim monthly maintenance
from 01.11.2021, to the date of this order within two months.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition
is filed.
5. Heard Sri D.V. Seeta Rama Murthy, learned Senior
Counsel, representing Sri Sudarshan Mulugari, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri
Raja Sreepathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
G. Aditya Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is challenging the interim maintenance order,
stating that the Family Court made several errors. Firstly, the
trial Court failed to consider the contention of the petitioner
that the petition was not maintainable, as the parties are UK
citizens governed by UK laws, specifically the Children Act,
1989 and the Child Abduction Act, 1984. He further
submitted that the trial Court overlooked the permanent
residence of the petitioner and his children in the UK, their
renunciation of Indian citizenship, and his acquisition of
SKS,J
British citizenship. The petitioner has been living in the UK
since 2002 and obtained British citizenship in the year, 2012.
The petitioner also asserts that the trial Court ignored the
pendency of matrimonial disputes and ancillary issues in UK
Courts, which have jurisdiction over the parties. The UK
courts have already seized the matter, and an anti-suit
injunction has been granted to prevent the ex-wife of the
petitioner from pursuing maintenance claims in India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner claims that his ex-wife has mismanaged finances,
suppressed material facts, and acted with malicious
intentions. The petitioner also alleges that his ex-wife has
failed to provide a conducive environment for their children,
instead teaching them negative and harmful opinions about
him. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking
to set aside the interim maintenance order, stating that the
Family Court lacked jurisdiction and competency to
adjudicate the matter. The petitioner believes that the UK
Courts are better equipped to assess the financial conditions
of the parties, needs, and expenses, and to provide an effective
and efficacious remedy.
SKS,J
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu
and another 1 , wherein in paragraph No.10, it is held as
under:
10. We may add that the spouses had set up
their matrimonial home in England where the wife
was working as a clerk and the husband as a bus
driver. The boy is a British citizen, having been born
in England, and he holds a British passport. It
cannot be controverted that, in these
circumstances, the English Court had jurisdiction
to decide the question of his custody. The modern
theory of Conflict of Laws recognises and, in any
event, prefers the jurisdiction of the State which has
the most intimate contact with the issues arising in
the case. Jurisdiction is not attracted by the
operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances
such as the circumstance as to where the child,
whose custody is in issue, is brought or for the time
being lodged. To allow the assumption of
jurisdiction by another State in such circumstances
will only result in encouraging forum-shopping.
Ordinarily, jurisdiction must follow upon functional
lines. That is to say, for example, that in matters
relating to matrimony and custody, the law of that
place must govern which has the closest concern
with the well-being of the spouses and the welfare of
the offsprings of marriage. The spouses in this case
had made England their home where this boy was
(1984) 3 SCC 698
SKS,J
born to them. The father cannot deprive the English
Court of its jurisdiction to decide upon his custody
by removing him to India, not in the normal
movement of the matrimonial home but, by an act
which was gravely detrimental to the peace of that
home. The fact that the matrimonial home of the
spouses was in England, establishes sufficient
contacts or ties with that State in order to make it
reasonable and just for the courts of that State to
assume jurisdiction to enforce obligations which
were incurred therein by the spouses. (See
International Shoe Company v. State of Washington
[90 L Ed 95 (1945) : 326 US 310] which was not a
matrimonial case but which is regarded as the
fountainhead of the subsequent developments of
jurisdictional issues like the one involved in the
instant case.) It is our duty and function to protect
the wife against the burden of litigating in an
inconvenient forum which she and her husband
had left voluntarily in order to make their living in
England, where they gave birth to this unfortunate
boy."
9. Learned counsel further relied upon the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sondur Gopal v. Sondur
Rajini 2, wherein in paragraph No.18, it is held as follows:
"18. Rival submission necessitates examination of
extent and applicability of the Act. Section 1(2) of
the Act provides for extent of the Act. The same
reads as follows:
"1.Short title and extent.--(1)***
(2013) 7 SCC 426
SKS,J
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State
of Jammu and Kashmir, and applies also to Hindus
domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends
who are outside the said territories."
From a plain reading of Section 1(2) of the Act, it is
evident that it has extra-territorial operation.
10. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the
Bombay High Court in Sucheta Dilip Ghate and another v.
Dilip Shantaram Ghate 3 , wherein in paragraph No.6, it is
held as follows:
"6. The order of the Family Court is based upon
section 20 to hold that the petition of the appellants
has to be instituted in a Court within local limits of
whose jurisdiction the defendant at the time of
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily
resides, or carries on business, or personally works
for gain, or where the cause of action, wholly or in
part arises. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 20 are
independent of each other. Clause (c) of section 20
confers jurisdiction on a Court within local limits of
whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in
part arises. Whether the cause of action either
wholly or in part arises in a suit would depend on
the averments made in the suit or marriage petition
for that matter. In other words, the cause of action
for filing of the suit should be ascertained from the
facts stated in the plaint/petition. The cause of
action means the circumstances forming infraction
of the right or immediate occasion for action. It is
2003 SCC OnLine Bom 316
SKS,J
left to be determined in each individual case as to
where the cause of action arises. The cause of
action in suit/petition has no reference to the
defence taken in the suit nor is it related to the
evidence by which the cause of action is
established. Keeping this settled principle of law in
view, we would now like to examine the averments
in the said petition. It seems from the body of the
petition that the appellants in the circumstances
mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said
petition were compelled to leave matrimonial house
and reside separately at Ahmedabad itself. The
circumstances further compelled the appellants to
shift to Pune where they started residing with the
father of appellant No. 1. On the date of filing of the
marriage petitioner i.e. 5th August, 2000 they were
residing at Pune. The petition is filed for
maintenance with effect from 8th April, 1998 till
filing of the petition. It is true that till April 2000 the
appellants were residing at Ahmedabad. However,
admittedly they started residing at Pune since April
2000. Whether the appellants are entitled for
maintenance or not would be decided by the Family
Court. The facts itself undoubtedly indicate that the
cause of action in part did arise at Pune. By no
stretch of imagination it could be said that the
cause of action arose only at Ahmedabad. As a
matter of fact the circumstances forming infraction
of the right of the appellants continues and exists at
Pune. In other words the suffering of the appellants
due to lack of means of maintenance continues in
Pune and in view thereof we have no hesitation in
holding that the cause of action also arose at Pune.
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act has no
provision regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to
SKS,J
which the application for maintenance is to be
presented. The provisions of Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act are beneficial and social legislation
for the benefit of women and infirm old parents for
their maintenance while in distress. It cannot be
imagined by any stretch of imagination that such
person in distress would have to run from pillar to
post for relief under the provision of Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, if the husband or
son keeps on changing his residence or prefers to
reside in far away town from the town of wife or
parents. In view of this we are of the considered
view that taking recourse to clause (c) of section 20
of the Code of Civil Procedure, the proceedings
could be instituted at a place of residence of wife
who is residing at different place than her husband.
The Family Court at Pune, therefore, shall have
jurisdiction to entertain the said petition filed by the
appellants under the provisions of Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act and Special Marriage Act."
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
filed counter denying the averments of the petitioner stating
that the contention of the petitioner regarding jurisdiction is
unfounded and devoid of merit. The Respondents, being
Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders, are entitled to
legal protections under Indian law, including due process
rights. The reliance of the petitioners on the fact that the
parties are UK citizens is misconceived, as the OCI status of
the respondents confers upon them the right to seek legal
SKS,J
remedies in India. He submitted that the relocation of the
petitioner to India in August 2020 and the Respondents'
subsequent visit to India established domicile in India,
making the Family Court at Karimnagar the appropriate
forum for the maintenance claim. The attempt of the
petitioner to argue that the UK courts have jurisdiction over
the matter is unfounded, as the Respondents have a
legitimate claim to seek maintenance in India.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the
ex-parte divorce decree of the petitioner from the UK court is
unrecognizable under Indian law, as it was obtained without
the contest of the respondents and on the principle of "no-
fault divorce," which is not recognized in India. This decree is
therefore not enforceable in India, and the reliance of the
petitioner on it is misconceived. He further contended that
the anti-injunction suit order of the English Court is
incompatible with Indian laws and natural justice, restricting
the rights of the respondents to seek legal remedies in India.
This order is also in contravention of the principles of comity
of nations and the doctrine of forum non conveniens and that
the assertions of the petitioner of bona fide intentions and love
SKS,J
are contradicted by the report of the Child Arrangement
Committee, which states that the child shall live with the
petitioner. The deliberate omission of the petitioner of this
critical information misleads the Court and obscures the true
living arrangements and intentions of the parties involved.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the civil revision
petition as there are no merits.
13. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents relied upon the
Judgment of the Madras High Court in Kiran Kumar Chava
v. Usha Kiran Anne 4, wherein in paragraph Nos.75 and 77,
which are reads as follows:
"75. As far as the ex parte orders of US Courts
are concerned, though the foreign judgments are
not conclusive and it is only a factor to be decided,
the facts and circumstances would reveal that the
respondent as well as the twin children have taken
a decision to reside at Chennai peacefully and they
are not interested to return back to United States as
they are terribly afraid of going back, since they
have no trust on the revision petitioner. In the event
of sending them back to United States, forcibly,
they will be practically on the streets in United
States and the conscious of this Court does not
permit to take such a decision, since the rights
2023 SCC OnLine Mad 474
SKS,J
ensured under the Indian Constitution to the OCI
Cardholders are to be protected.
77. In view of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as elaborately
discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs and
considering the deposition of the 15 year old twin
children before this Court and also the decision of
the respondent to continue to reside at Chennai,
India as Overseas Cardholder, this Court has no
hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the
respondent is entitled to institute and maintain
matrimonial proceedings, DVC proceedings and any
other proceedings under the relevant Statutes in
Indian Courts having jurisdiction for appropriate
reliefs."
14. This Court has examined the submissions made by
both the learned counsel and reviewed the material on record.
The primary contention raised by the counsel of the petitioner
concerns the jurisdiction of the Court, emphasizing that both
parties are UK citizens. However, it is essential to note that
the petition was filed while the minor respondents and the
petitioner were in Karimnagar during the COVID-19
pandemic. The minor children were attending online classes
from a UK school while residing in Karimnagar, and their
school fees were being paid accordingly. The petitioner does
not dispute being in India at that time. Instead, he obtained
an ex-parte divorce from a UK Court subsequent to filing the
SKS,J
present petition. This raises questions about his sincerity in
challenging the jurisdiction of the Indian Court.
15. Furthermore, the petitioner admits to paying
maintenance of £60,000 per month to the minor children in
the UK. Given his acknowledgment of this financial
responsibility, it is reasonable to expect him to comply with
the maintenance order issued by the Family Court in
Karimnagar. The petitioner repeatedly emphasizes that both
parties are UK citizens and that the UK Court has better
jurisdiction over the matter. He cites the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder Kaur Sandhu (supra), which
discusses the jurisdiction of courts in child custody cases.
However, the facts of the present case differ significantly from
those in the cited judgment, as both parties are not contesting
the custody of the minor child. The petitioner also objects to
the adjudication of the proceedings in India, citing that both
parties are British Citizens. However, this objection lacks
merit, as OCI card holders are subject to Indian jurisdiction.
Further, there is no averment in the counter that the
petitioner is unfit to pay maintenance to the minor children,
despite his financially stable situation. Given his admission of
SKS,J
the relationship between the parties and his financial
expenses, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court.
The trial court has passed a reasoned order, and therefore,
there are no merits in the civil revision petition, making it
liable for dismissal.
16. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed
confirming the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.331 of
2022 in F.C.O.P.No.59 of 2021 by the learned Judge, Family
Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Karimnagar. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 03.03.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. ORDER IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1453 of 2024
Date: 03.03.2025
SAI
