The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, and custody should be granted to the parent if it serves the child's best interests.

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

The petitioner in this Writ of Habeas Corpus prays for declaration of the custody of his minor son Master Gautam Ramineni, aged 4 ½ years with respondents 3 & 4 as illegal and seeks direction to the respondents to produce his son before this court and to give the custody of his son to the petitioner.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, pithily the petitioner’s case is thus:

(a) The 2nd respondent is the wife and respondents 3 & 4 are parents-in-laws of the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner with the 2nd respondent was performed in December, 2010 at Vijayawada. The petitioner is a citizen of USA, working as software professional. After marriage, both the couple lived in Chicago till July, 2022 and then shifted to Dallas area. The 2nd respondent is also permanent resident of USA with US Green Card. Both the couple blessed with a male child Gautam Ramineni on 25.05.2019 and he is a citizen of USA having USA passport. The boy was admitted in a good school in Dallas area and he stayed in USA till February, 2023.

(b) While so, due to the strained relationship between the petitioner and 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent came to India in March, 2023 along with her son and went to Rajamahendravaram and staying with her parents i.e., respondents 3 & 4.

(c) Due to irreconcilable differences, the petitioner filed divorce petition in FCOP No.468/2023 in Family Court at Vijayawada in April, 2023 attributing physical and mental cruelty against the 2nd respondent. In retaliation, the 2nd respondent initiated criminal proceedings against him in Disha Police Station, Rajamahendravaram under Sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Cr.No.92/2023. She also filed a maintenance case in FCOP No.218/2023 for grant of maintenance and further filed FCOP No.232/2023 seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the petitioner in the Family Court at Rajamahendravaram which are pending. She also filed Tr.C.M.P. No.196/2023 before this High Court for direction to transfer the divorce petition filed by the petitioner to the Family Court at Rajamahendravaram.

(d) Then, the main thrust of the petitioner’s pleadings is that the 2nd respondent abandoned his minor son and left for USA in August, 2023. The boy is now with the respondents 3 & 4 who are the residents of Rajamahendravaram. They are elderly citizens and unable to look after the physical and mental health of the boy and particularly his educational requirements. The minor boy could not acclimatize himself to the new environment at Rajamahendravaram where he lost his appetite and severely malnutritioned and he is dripped to underweight due to lack of proper care, attention, nutrition and congenial atmosphere. The boy is living in unhygienic surroundings in a cramped house with a stinking open drain in front of the house which he was not accustomed at all, while he was in USA in a clean, neat and hygienic atmosphere. Further, the atmosphere in the house of respondents 3 & 4 is not conducive for the child to grow as the respondents 3 & 4 besides old, respondent 3 and his son consume alcohol at home creating unhealthy and unfriendly environment for the child. Above all, the emails shared by the 2nd respondent would reveal that the minor boy is being given poor quality of education with the local school at Rajamahendravaram and his health is also not good. On all these pleas, the petitioner sought for direction to the respondents.

3. The respondent No.2 filed counter on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 inter alia contending thus:

(a) She denied all the material averments in the petition. It is further contended that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable in view of the facts involved in the case and instead of filing a guardian application, the petitioner filed the present petition.

(b) The allegation that the 2nd respondent has abandoned her son and went away to USA is not correct. On the other hand, she went to USA f