The paramount consideration in custody matters is the best interest and welfare of the child, not the legal rights of the parents.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in the Family Court Appeal No. 37 of 2022 is to the order, dated 02.05.2022, in F.C.O.P. No. 156 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short ‘the learned Judge, Family Court’) where under the learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the Petition filed by the petitioner (husband) under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the FC Act’) seeking custody of the minor child by name Likith Sri Sai @ Sri Sreeyansh.

2. Challenge in the Civil Revision Petition No. 1842 of 2022 is to the order, dated 12.08.2022, in I.A. No. 642 of 2022 in G.O.P. No. 147 of 2017 where under the learned Judge, Family Court modified the orders passed in G.O.P. No. 147 of 2017, dated 12.01.2019.

3. The parties to this Family Court Appeal and Civil Revision Petition will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in the respective cases.

4. The appellant (husband) herein is the petitioner in F.C.O.P. No. 156 of 2019, who filed the same under Section 7 of the FC Act seeking custody of the minor child by name Likith Sri Sai @ Sri Sreeyansh. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as set out in FCOP No. 156 of 2019 is that he is the legally wedded husband of the first respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 08.05.2014 at Tirupati as per the Hindu rites and customs. Later, there arose some matrimonial disputes between the couple which resulted into filing of several cases before various Courts at Tirupati. Presently, they are residing separately. As the petitioner is very much interested to lead a happy marital life with his wife, he filed a Petition against his wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights in FCOP No. 15 of 2016 before the trial Court. At the instance of second and third respondents, who are her parents, she filed a Petition FCOP No. 114 of 2016 before the trial Court seeking divorce. The learned Judge, Family Court disposed of both the Petitions vide common order, dated 09.09.2017, wherein the FCOP No. 15 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed and FCOP No. 114 of 2016 for divorce was dismissed. In I.A. No. 1503 of 2016 in FCOP No. 15 of 2016 on 08.07.2016 visitation rights were awarded to the petitioner to visit his minor child. Aggrieved by granting visitation rights to the petitioner herein, the first respondent preferred an Appeal in FCA No. 409 of 2017 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which is pending. The petitioner herein also filed GOP No. 147 of 2017 before the trial Court to enforce his visiting rights and it was allowed on 12.01.2019 directing the respondent (wife) to handover the minor child to the petitioner on every Saturday to spend time with him from 10:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. To avoid implementation of the said judgment, respondent (wife) forcibly took away the minor child to an un-disclosed location. Petitioner, on due enquiry, learnt that his minor child is not even attending the school and the respondents are trying to inflict harm to him and to harass him. The respondents are holding his minor child to pressurize the petitioner to consent for divorce. These acts of the respondents are detrimental to the interest of the minor child. The petitioner has apprehension for the safety, welfare and well being of his minor child. The petitioner also made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati on 28.01.2019 but no action was taken. The minor child is deprived of the fatherly affection of the petitioner. First respondent is trying to go abroad leaving the minor child with her parents i.e. second and third respondents. It is not in the best interest of the minor child to be to be in the custody of first respondent and her parents. In fact, he filed GOP No. 147 of 2017 to seek visitation rights of minor child as he did not want to take away the child from the care and custody of first respondent as the child was of a tender age. Because now th