IMPORTANT POINT
The Family Court's discretion to allow legal representation is conditional upon compliance with prior court orders regarding child custody.

ORDER :

R Raghunandan Rao, J.

The petitioner and the respondent, who were already living in the United States of America, got married on 18.11.2010 in Tirupati. Thereafter, they had moved to the state of Michigan, where their son (herein referred to as the “child”) was born on 02.10.2014.

2. As differences arose between them, the petitioner herein approached the Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan (herein referred to as the “Court of Michigan”), for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent herein, as well as for the custody of their child. A consent order was passed on 21.01.2016, wherein the marriage was dissolved and the terms of the custody of the child were also fixed.

3. The petitioner moved to India along with the child on 12.06.2017 and lived with the child in Tirupati. Subsequently, the respondent came to India and filed a writ of Habeas Corpus numbered as W.P.No.30964 of 2018, claiming that the terms of the order of the Court of Michigan required the custody of the child to be rotated between the respondent and the petitioner on a three monthly basis and that the child could not have moved out of the USA as there was a restraint order in the consent order mentioned by both the petitioner and the respondent, wherein the child could not have been moved out of the USA.

4. It may also be noted that after shifting to India, the petitioner moved F.C.O.P.No.110 of 2018 before the Family Court-cum- V Additional District Court, Tirupati, in August 2018, for sole custody of the child.

5. Initially, the erstwhile High Court for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, at Hyderabad, had directed that the interim custody of the child be given to the respondent for a period of two days subject to the respondent depositing her passport with the Court. The respondent, after deposit of her passport, was given the custody of the child for two days and after the expiry of the said two days, she returned the child back to the custody of the petitioner.

6. On 15.11.2018, the respondent withdrew her writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.30964 of 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, at Hyderabad, by way of W.P.No.47795 of 2018, contending that the respondent, taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner in Tirupati, as he was attending the High Court in relation to the proceedings in W.P.No.30964 of 2018, had abducted the child from Tirupati and that some persons, accompanying the respondent, had also assaulted his parents. This Writ Petition was transferred to this Court upon bifurcation of the combined High Court for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, at Hyderabad. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 12.04.2019, had given a finding that the child had been abducted by the respondent on 15.11.2018 and was taken out of the country despite pending litigation. The respondent was directed to produce the child before the Family Court in Tirupati in F.C.O.P.No.110 of 2018 within 8 weeks to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of that order.

7. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.6436 of 2019. During the pendency of this SLP, F.C.O.P.No.110 of 2018 came to be dismissed on 20.12.2019, on the ground that the Family Court at Tirupati, does not have any jurisdiction to take up the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, being appraised of this fact, had held that nothing further survives for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the F.C.O.P. itself had been closed and closed the SLP by an order dated 24.01.2021.

8. Thereafter, in a parallel proceeding, the petitioner herein had filed F.C.A.No.172 of 2019, before this Court, against the order of dismissal, dated 20.12.2019, passed by the Family Court, Tirupati in F.C.O.P.No.110 of 2018. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 23.09.2021, had allowed the appeal holding that the Family Court, Tirupati, is not denuded of its