IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, V. SRINIVAS, JJ.
Atheesh Sanka S/o Seshagiri Rao – Appellant
Versus
Sanka (Mamidi) Lakshmi Renuka W/o Atheesh Sanka – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 329 of 2022
Decided On : 20-06-2023
Custody Dispute - Guardian and Wards Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - Section 7, 25, 6 - The judgment discusses the custody dispute over a minor child, Akshaya, between the parents residing in the USA and India. The court considered the child's citizenship, jurisdiction, and welfare, ultimately ruling in favor of the father's custody based on the child's citizenship and the jurisdiction of the USA court.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a petition seeking custody of their minor child, alleging harassment and mistreatment by the husband. The husband denied the allegations and claimed custody based on the child's citizenship and the jurisdiction of the USA court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the child was a citizen of the USA and had been residing with the father since birth. It concluded that the Indian court did not have jurisdiction to grant custody to the mother.
Issues: 1. Child's citizenship and residence 2. Jurisdiction of the court 3. Validity of the trial court's order
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the child's citizenship and residence in the USA, along with the custody order from the USA court, determined the jurisdiction and custody rights, leading to the setting aside of the trial court's order.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, setting aside the trial court's order in Guardian O.P. No. 61 of 2019 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada.
JUDGMENT :
V. SRINIVAS, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Order and decree dated 01.08.2022 passed by the IV Additional District Court, Kakinada in Guardian O.P.No. 61 of 2019.
2. The appellant herein is the husband/respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The respondent herein/wife filed a petition under Section 7 and 25 of Guardian and Wards Act and Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, before the trial court against her husband/appellant herein, seeking custody of their minor child by name Akshaya.
4. The case of the respondent/wife herein in brief is as follows:
(ii) She gave birth to a minor baby on 5-4-2018 and she was named Akshaya. Whenever she is asking about the baby’s basic needs and doctor appointments, he gets wild and one occasion, he did not allow her to touch the baby and he would forcefully snatch the baby from her and another occasion, he pushed her away from the baby while himself and his father were drunk.
(iii) On one occasion she went to the hospital leaving the baby with him, after she came back, she noticed that her four months old baby was seen precariously hanging over his leg. On questioning, he abused her. He compelled and coerced her to co-operate for mutual divorce in USA, if failure he will harm the life of baby and put her to severe fear in this regard, on which he compelled to sign on divorce paper.
(iv) The respondent made false promises that he is planning to travel to India for her and baby and stated that he is withdrawing divorce proposal, on which she was prepared to come to India. But in the last minute, he informed that the baby’s passport is not yet ready and asked her to leave alone for India and in two days he will come to India along with the baby. Believing his words, she came to India and waiting for them. Thereafter, she came to know that she was deceiving by him with false representations.
(v) As she is on dependent visa came to India, she is unable to enter USA, as such she is not in a position even to go back to USA for the baby. She made all efforts to convince him, but he is adamant in that regard. She is living with her parents at Kakinada with a fond hope he will bring her baby to Kakinada. But the appellant illegally and forcibly detained the minor away from her custody. The respondent has no right to detain or retain the minor forcibly in his illegal custody, as the minor is expected to reside with the mother where she ordinarily resides.
5. The appellant/husband herein denied the case by filing his counter and his case is as follows:
(ii) The petitioner and her parents asked him for divorce in month of July 2018, as she is not happy with the marriage, but he tried to convince her and her parents, but they did not heed his words, thus he filed a
Lahari Sakhamuri vs. Sobhan Kodali
Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob Chakramakkal
Sobhan Kodali, USA, Rep. by his G.P.A. Holder, Kodali Jaya Ramesh vs. Lahari Sakhamuri
The child's citizenship and residence, along with the jurisdiction of the court where the child ordinarily resides, determine custody rights in international custody disputes.
It does not connote place of origin or country in which minor has citizenship. It does not depend on duration of minor’s residence, but more on intention of person who has child’s lawful custody; whi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of territorial jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the consideration of the best interest of the child in the....
The welfare of a minor child is of paramount importance, and custody should generally remain with the mother unless proven harmful, reaffirming the 'tender years rule.'
Parental abduction undermines custody orders; courts prioritize the child's welfare over legal contingencies.
(1) Rights of parents are irrelevant when a Court decides custody issue. It is not a consideration at all for deciding the issue.(2) A parent has to be given an option to go abroad with child – It ul....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.