Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN, JJ.
Suryas Ravi Prakash Rao – Appellant
Versus
Mohithe Manohar Rao and Others – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 247 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2025
For the Appellant : K.P. Abhiram
For the Respondent: Vivekananda Virupaksha
The paramount consideration in custody disputes is the welfare of the child, which may prevail over the rights of the natural guardian, especially in cases of past trauma and parental allegations.
Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 9, 10, 17 and 23 - Child custody - Appeal by father for custody of his minor son after being acquitted in murder charges of the mother - Lower court denied custody due to child's refusal to go with father and being witness against him - Welfare of the child deemed paramount, favoring maternal grandparents who provided stable upbringing including education and health care. (Paras 1, 11, 24, 28, 60, 64, 88)
(B) Parens Patriae jurisdiction - Courts prioritize child’s welfare above parental rights, recognizing psychological impacts stemming from custody disputes and the necessity of nurturing relationships. (Paras 24, 27, 62)
Facts of the case:
The appellant father sought custody of his son after acquittal in a case where he was accused of murdering the child's mother. The respondent maternal relatives claimed custody, emphasizing the trauma to the child and their role in his care and education.
Findings of Court:
Court determined that the child's welfare, including emotional safety and educational needs, was better served by the maternal relatives.
Issues: The denial of custody based on the child's refusal and allegations against the father, and the assessment of the welfare of the child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that custody decisions must reflect the child's best interests, deeming the father's past actions and the child's testimony as critical in the decision process.
Result: Appeal dismissed; custody remains with maternal grandparents; visitation rights granted. (Paras 11, 69, 72, 86)
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri K.P. Abhiram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.
FACTS:
2. This appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 (for short, the G.W. Act, 1890) has been filed by the appellant-father of the minor son Chi. Suryas Srivatsav (in short "Ward") seeking his custody under Sections 9 , 10 and 23 of the G.W. Act, 1890, from the respondents‟ custody, being aggrieved from the order of rejection of his petition G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2020 by order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ananthapuram.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 are the maternal grandfather, grandmother and uncle of the ward respectively.
4. The appellant was married to late Jyothi Manohar. Out of their wedlock, the son Chi Suryas Srivatsav was born. On 04.09.2017, in an incident at the appellant‟s home, his wife died, during treatment in Chandra Hospital. The respondents registered Crime No.146 of 2017 of IV Town Police Station, Ananthapuram under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant and his parents. It is the appellant‟s case that the respondents took away the Ward on pretext and against the wish. The ward was under forceful control and custody of the respondents. The appellant approached the respondents, but they did not give custody. The ward was being deprived of the love, affection and care of the appellant-father. He was falsely implicated in the case of death of his wife alleging it to be murder though it was a case of suicide. The appellant filed the G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2020 for custody of the ward submitting inter alia that the welfare of the ward was with the appellant.
5. The 1st respondent filed counter. The same was adopted by the respondents 2 and 3. They admitted the relationship. However, they submitted that there was demand of dowry, harassment to the wife, physical and mental, and that she was murdered. The appellant neglected the welfare of the ward. The Sessions Case No.207 of 2018 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) was pending against the appellant and his parents. The ward deposed against the father. The appellant assaulted the minor and his conduct was to eliminate the child who was the only eye witness of the incident. The endeavour of the appellant was to stop the ward from deposing against him. The appellant never approached the respondents to take care of the ward or to know his welfare and wellbeing.
6. The respondents further pleaded that they admitted the child in Euro School, White Field, Bangalore in 1st Grade and that, (at the time of filing response), the ward was in 3rd grade. They were evincing great interest and care for the welfare of the ward. They had deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in fixed deposit, in the name of the ward for his future. It was pleaded that the safety, bright future and the welfare of the ward was not with the appellant or his parents, but was with the respondents. They pleaded that the 2nd respondent had filed G & W.C.No.101 of 2018 for appointment of Guardianship of the ward, in the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore. But, without disclosing the same, the appellant filed G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2020 for custody of the ward in the court at Ananthpuram. In G & W.C.No.101 of 2018, I.A.No.5 of 2019 was filed by the present appellant- father, seeking custody of the minor which was rejected.
7. During pendency of G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2020, the appellant was acquitted in S.C.No.207 of 2018.
8. In G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2020, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1. Joint photograph of himself with the ward and Ex.A.2 certified copy of the Judgment of his acquittal in S.C.No.207 of 2018 dated 12.04.2022, passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram.
9. The respondents in G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2020 examined R.W.1, (3rd respondent) and marked Exs.B.1 to B.4 i.e original school fee receipts,
