The welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding the legal rights of the parties involved.

ORDER :

(Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.)

This habeas corpus petition is filed under Article 26 of Constitution of India for the following main relief: -

“……declaring the bizarre action of the Respondent Nos.5 to 9 in imperiously taking away and retaining the custody of the minor child Suhas is illegal highhanded tainted with malice actuated to deprive the petitioner, who being his mother of his lawful right to hold the custody and act as guardian of the minor child and void being in derogation of Section 13 of the Hindu minority and guardianship Act, 1956 and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to handover the custody of the minor Suhas to the petitioner and pass……”

Brief case of the petitioner:-

2. Petitioner’s first husband namely Late M. Prasad initially married to Lakshmi Swapna Devi and they were blessed with one child namely, M.Suhas (minor), who was born on 08.07.2012, aged about 12 years (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as ‘child’). The said Lakshmi Swapna Devi passed away on 29.12.2014 due to ill health. Later on, the petitioner had married M.Prasad in the year 2017, which was registered on 27.09.2019, they lived together along with the child. Unfortunately, the said M. Prasad had passed away suddenly on 29.06.2024.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that, after the death of late M. Prasad (husband), the child was taken away by the unofficial respondents 5 to 9, who are parents of the late M. Prasad, brother and other close relatives of child’s father. Now, the petitioner apprehends danger to the child in the hands of the unofficial respondents 5 to 9. Hence, she instituted the instant writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of the child.

Brief case of the unofficial respondents 5 to 9:-

4. Per contra, the 7^th respondent who is the brother of the Late M.Prasad filed his detailed counter denying the assertions made by the writ petitioner. The counter further reveals that the petitioner was initially married to one Challa Surya Annapurneswara Rao and out of their marital tie, they were blessed with a boy namely, Challa Pranav Subhash.

5. In view of the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner filed maintenance case No.22 of 2013 on the file of A.J.F.C.M, Palakollu against her first husband (Challa Surya Annapurneswara Rao). The said case was dismissed against the petitioner and allowed against her natural son. Against the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.79 of 2019 before the X Addl. District Judge, Narasapur. The Revisional Court has enhanced the amount so far as petitioner’s natural child Challa Pranav Subhash is concerned, and dismissed the claim against the petitioner herein. At last, the said case landed before this Court by way of Crl.P.No.272 of 2024 and the same is pending final adjudication. It is specifically stated in the counter that, the petitioner had never admitted her marriage with late M. Prasad, in her matrimonial cases filed against her first husband, so as to, claim maintenance only. It is further stated that, the petitioner is neither the natural mother nor the step-mother of the child. As such, in this case also, the petitioner cannot claim as if she is the mother of the child. It is also stated that, in order to extract money and property of the child for her ulterior purposes, the petitioner came up under the cover of motherhood.

Rejoinder of the petitioner:-

6. In response, the petitioner filed her reply affidavit admitting her earlier marriage with Challa Surya Annapurneshwara Rao. The petitioner also claims that their marriage ended with divorce proceedings vide orders dated 20.03.2017 in H.M.O.P No.15 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur. Moreover, the petitioner also filed a police complaint dated 29.07.2014 against the unofficial respondents.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.Naga Surya Rao, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General and Sri Y. Rama Tirtha, learned counsel for the unofficial resp