IMPORTANT POINT
The welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and insufficient allegations against a parent do not justify denying custody.

ORDER :

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to produce the minor daughter of the petitioner herein, namely baby Maram Dohati, aged about four (04) years and set her at liberty.

2. The petitioner contends that he was married to one, P. Kusuma Kumari, and that during the wedlock, two (2) children were born to them, aged 12years (boy) and 4 years(girl) and that recently 13-09-2023, his wife died due to heart ailments and that he and his parents are looking after the children. It is represented that the elder child is pursuing his education in a residential school, and the younger child is staying with him and is going to school. On 01-11-2023, while the younger child was attending to her classes at school, and when his mother went to the school, to pick her up for lunch, the younger kid was found missing at the school and that on enquiry he came to know that his wife's relatives have taken away his younger kid without informing him. He states that when he tried to reach out to his in-laws, he could neither find them, nor his daughter was set back to him. Which, he states, has necessitated filing of the present Writ Petition.

3. The respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed their counter affidavit, denying the averments of the petitioner. It is stated by them that the petitioner had never taken care of his deceased wife i.e., their daughter. And that during her life time, she had taken few insurance policies and after her death, it is contended that the petitioner had demanded them to pay the insurance amounts to him, and that when they have refused to succumb to his demands, he had tried to pressurize them through anti social elements. It is further stated that he had even refused to permit them to see the elder grandson, who is studying in school staying in school hostel. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have pleaded for custody of the grandchild baby Maram Dohati, be given to them. They further stated that the death benefits of their daughter, either it be the insurance or employment benefits, should solely belong to the children of their deceased daughter Smt. P. Kusuma Kumari.

4. The petitioner filed his reply to the counter affidavit of respondent Nos.5 & 6 enclosing certain photographs and certain other documents reflecting the purchases he claims to have made, for his family, etc., and contends that he had taken every responsibility of his family. He stated that he had never claimed any amounts under the insurance policy and would never even claim any of those amounts, It is further undertook by him in the reply/rejoinder that he would never claim any of those amounts realised from the insurance policies and stated that he has no objection if the same are deposited in the name of hiss minor children or any other condition the court may impose. It contended that he would only want the welfare of his minor children and their well being, with the said motive, he stated he had decided to relocate his children to USA and prayed the custody of the minor baby girl be given to him. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 07.11.2023, the 4th respondent had produced the minor girl Maram Dohati, before the Court on 10.11.2023. On the said date, we have interacted with the parties.

5. Heard Sri. Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri for the respondent Nos.5 to 9, and the learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. Y. N. Vivekananda, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

6. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner all through has been taking care of the minor children and even during the life time of his wife. The petitioner being the father and natural guardian of the minor baby girl, prays that the custody of her be given to the petitioner. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejaswini Goud and Ors., v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors (2019 ) 7 S.C.R. 335.

7. Per contra, Sri. V.R,.Reddy Kovuur