Telangana High Court

Bhaji Ranjit Kumar vs Bhaji Ranjit Deepa on 7 November, 2025

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

         Civil Revision Petition No.3438 of 2025

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order

dated 25.03.2025 in I.A.No.1499 of 2024 in GWOP.No.07 of 2024

passed by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar

(for short, 'the impugned order').

2. Heard Ms.R. Sandhya Rani, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the

petitioner; and Mr. K. Janaki Rama Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. The relationship between petitioner and respondent herein

is that of husband and wife.

4. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the above

I.A. which was filed by the respondent (wife) under Section 12 of

the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 of

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and granted interim custody of the

minor child, viz., Viranshu Varshini Bhaji Ranjith to the

respondent within one month from the date of order subject to ::2:: PSK,J crp_3438_2025

completion of examinations of the child in school, failing which

the respondent would proceed in accordance with law. The Trial

Court also granted visitation rights to the petitioner to visit the

minor child on 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month at the

premises of DLSA / MLSA, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh from 02:00

P.M. to 04:30 P.M. until further orders.

5. Initially, the petitioner (husband) filed the above GWOP

under Section 25 of the Guardianship & Wards Act read with

Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956

praying the Court to grant Decree of Custody of child to the

petitioner.

6. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant Civil Revision

Petition are that there appears to be a strained relationship

between the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife). The

marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on

19.10.2013. Out of the said wedlock, a female child was born on

26.08.2016 viz., Viranshu Varshini Bhaji Ranjit, i.e., more than

nine years ago. As the relationship between the petitioner and

respondent had further got strained, the petitioner and their

family members have forcefully brought the respondent to the

parental home in January, 2024 and left her there. Meanwhile, ::3:: PSK,J crp_3438_2025

the petitioner (husband) filed OP.NO.253 of 2024 seeking for

dissolution of marriage and simultaneously the above GWOP was

also filed seeking for custody of the girl child. It is in the said

GWOP that the respondent (wife) had filed the above I.A., viz.,

I.A.No.1499 of 2024 in GWOP.No.07 of 2024 seeking for interim

custody of the minor girl child, and which was allowed by the

Trial Court vide the impugned order which is under challenge in

the instant Civil Revision Petition.

7. In the above I.A., the respondent (wife) had categorically

stated that she had been forcefully left at her parental home by

the petitioner without the company of her daughter and without

heeding to the respondent's request to take along her daughter

to the parental home. It is the further contention of the

respondent that the girl child is at a growing age and is aged

around nine years. She, therefore, contended that it would be

more appropriate if the custody of the girl child is given to the

respondent. The respondent also made a statement that she is

in the capacity to take care of the girl child and also the child's

needs including that of giving best of education. Meanwhile, the

respondent also stated that the above GWOP had been filed by ::4:: PSK,J crp_3438_2025

the petitioner on the basis of false, fabricated and baseless

allegations.

8. On the other hand, the petitioner in the course of filing of

the above GWOP had tried to assassinate the character of

respondent by making all sorts of allegations that she was living

an adulterous life by having extra-marital affairs. Therefore, the

petitioner contended that under the said circumstances it would

not be appropriate to grant custody of the child to the

respondent as it could have an adverse impact on the child's

mental and physical growth and also in the overall upbringing of

the girl child. He therefore contended that the interim custody

granted by the Trial Court needs to be interfered with, and

prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and allow the

Revision.

9. Having gone through the impugned order and also the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either

side, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the

observations made by the Trial Court in respect of what the

respondent felt in the course of communicating with the minor

child in the chamber of the Judge, Family Court on 10.02.2025.

                                        ::5::                             PSK,J
                                                                 crp_3438_2025

For ready reference, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder,

viz.,

"7. Before passing these orders and before hearing arguments on both sides, this Court has interviewed the minor child in the chambers of Presiding Officer on 10.02.2025. It was observed that the minor child had on one hand identified the petitioner as her mother and at the same time stated that her mother is residing in another country, and showed abhorrence towards the respondent. After interviewing the child, this Court was deeply pained to observe that the child was heavily tutored and deep hatred was inflicted in her against her mother. Though the child stated that her mother used to come to her school and feed her lunch every day, she had also stated that her mother and one male were together in her presence but she could not stage when and where the incident had took place. She has many memories of her mother but she was reluctant to even recognize the petitioner as her mother. It appeared to this Court that the child was mentally tutored to such an extent that even she refused to talk to her mother at least once."

10. In the light of the aforesaid observations made by the Trial

Court, this Court has no doubt in reaching to the conclusion

that the impugned order was passed by the Trial Court only after

weighing the pros and cons and also taking into consideration

the paramount interest of the girl child.

11. One cannot brush aside the fact that the girl child in issue

is a female child and the child is at a growing age, and the child

had crossed nine years of age as on date. It is at this stage that ::6:: PSK,J crp_3438_2025

a female child undergoes a considerable hormonal changes and

it is the mother alone who can understand the needs of the

female child and tend to her needs accordingly. Undisputedly, it

is the welfare and interest of the minor child which is of

paramount importance. As observed earlier, a child who had

crossed nine years of age would be soon attaining the age of

puberty, and it is at this crucial stage that company of the

natural mother is what is required most. Even though the child

may live with her paternal grand-mother or any of her aunts

near her, but all said and done, they cannot substitute for a

natural mother.

12. Further, right from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal 1 and

also in the case of Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs. Jayanti

Ganguli 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been very categorical

in holding that the first and paramount consideration is the

welfare and interest of the child and ideally a girl child aged

above seven years, the custody has to be given to the mother

unless there are circumstances to indicate that it would be

harmful to the girl child to be left in the custody of the mother.




    AIR 2009 SC 557

    AIR 2008 SC 2262
                                 ::7::                          PSK,J
                                                       crp_3438_2025

13. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that there is a possibility of the mother causing harm to the girl

child but there does not seem to be any basis for the said

contention. Another aspect which needs consideration is that

which had also been observed by the Trial Court that, if in the

way that the girl child had been tutored and poisoned, so far as

her approach to the respondent-mother is concerned, is

permitted to prolong there is all possibility of the minor girl child

completely forgetting the necessity of a mother which in the

opinion of the Trial Court was not something very appreciable. It

is all the more worth noting the fact that the girl child had been

in the custody of the father for quite some time and at this stage