The welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and the fitness of the parents or guardians and the overall welfare of the child should be the primary and utmost consideration.

ORDER :

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to produce his minor daughter namely Chitti Vedanshi, aged about four (04) years, before this Court and set her at liberty.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition, as stated by the petitioner are that he got married to one, Ms. Nagamani in the year 2016, and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a baby girl by name Chitti Vedanshi in the year 2019. And that in the year 2022, his wife died on account of heart ailments. After the death of his wife, he submits that his minor kid was staying with him and the unofficial respondents 5 & 6, who are grandparents of the minor child were visiting them now and then, and on 23-04-2023, the unofficial respondents took the minor child along with them, stating that they would send her back in a week. He submits that believing their word, he had let them take her along with them. Thereafter, he states that the unofficial respondents 5 and 6 after taking his minor child along with them did not send her back, driving him to file the present Writ Petition.

3. On notice, the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 entered their appearance through their counsel and filed their counter affidavit. The respondents 5 to 7 state that after delivery of the first child, the doctors have advised the deceased wife of the petitioner, not to procreate children, despite the said advise, the deceased succumbing to the pressure of the petitioner and his family members, conceived , and that the same ultimately led to her unfortunate death. The respondents have further submitted that they are resourceful and would take care of the minor child, with utmost care, love and affection, if her custody is given to them.

4. This Court vide order dated 26.09.2023, directed the unofficial respondents to produce the minor child before the Court. Pursuant to the same, on 04.10.2.23, the minor child of the petitioner was produced before this Court. And this Court on 04.10.2023 had interacted with the minor girl and observed as follows:

“Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 26.09.2023, respondents 5 to 7 have produced the minor child by name Vedanshi. We had an interaction with the minor child, who is four years old, in the chambers. During our interaction, although she stated that she intends to live with her maternal grandparents and that she is not willing to live with her father, we are of the considered opinion that she is not fully matured to express any opinion according to her free volition, as she is four years old.

The petitioner, who is the father of the minor child, is working in Pune and it is stated by him that now he is working from home in Guntur. When questioned as to how he would take care of his child if he is called back to Pune to work in office, it is stated by him that his mother, who is a widow, would follow him and take care of the child in Pune. His mother is also present in the Court and when we questioned her, initially, she stated that she is not willing to go to Pune. But, again she stated that she would go to Pune along with his son to look after the minor child.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit of the mother of the petitioner explaining whether she would follow the petitioner to Pune and live with him and would look after the minor child or not in clear terms without any ambiguity by the next date of hearing, to pass appropriate orders in this Writ Petition after considering the same.

The 5th respondent, who is the maternal grandfather of the minor child, is also present and he states that he got a son and another daughter, who are married and that he is an agriculturist by profession and that he got 10 acres of land and earning Rs.2.00 Lakhs per annum on it. He has admitted that when the child is in the custody of the petitioner, who is her father, that the 7th respondent brought her from his custody at their ins