ORDER :

This CRP is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.23.6.2018 in IA.No.680 of 2018 in FCOP.No.367 of 2018 of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.

2. The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. They have a child Agastya, aged just above 5 years.

3. The said FCOP was filed as GWOP No. 624/2018 by the respondent against the petitioner before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar seeking custody of the said minor child under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Later, on an objection by the respondent vide I.A.No.258/2018 as to the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, it appears that the OP was returned on 23-5-2018 directing the respondent to present it to the Family Court, Secunderabad. It was then presented in the said Court and given the FCOP No.367 of 2018.

4. In the O.P. the respondent contended that he and the petitioner had got married in Hyderabad, that the above child was born during wedlock, that the child had been separated from him since January, 2018 by the petitioner, that she had filed false criminal cases against him which failed, and since he is attached to the child and cannot bear to be separated from the child, and the child was earlier living in a very comfortable, affectionate, loving and happy environment provided by him, he should be given permanent custody.

5. Though the respondent had filed applications to see the child and also for custody during summer vacation of the child in April-May, 2018, there were no favorable orders in his favor.

6. So after the FCOP.No.367 of 2018 was numbered, the respondent filed I.A.No.680 of 2018 u/s.151 CPC in June, 2018 seeking custody of the child from 15.6.2018 till 30.6.2018. Citing his inability to spend time till then and contending that his own ( the respondent’s) birthday was on 17.6.2018, his mother’s birthday was 24.6.2018 and his late father’s death anniversary was on 26.6.2018, he made the above application. He stated that there are several persons in his house to look after the child and he would ensure that the child would not miss school during the above period.

7. This application was opposed by the petitioner who contended that she and the child had been living away from the respondent for more than 4 years, that during this period the respondent showed no love or care towards the child, that the respondent is a homosexual having a relationship with a male person, that only because of pressure from family and society, the respondent cohabited with petitioner in 2012 resulting in the birth of the child. She contended that the respondent had subjected the child to non-aggravated forms of sexual abuse for which she lodged a complaint Cr.No.32/2018 under Sec.5 of the POCSO Act against the respondent, but police were influenced by the respondent to wrongly invoke S.5 of the said Act dealing with aggravated form of sexual abuse and they later closed the case. She contended that there is a serious threat to the life and well being of the child if temporary custody of the child was given to the respondent. She also alleged that the mother of the respondent treated her with cruelty. She contended that the respondent is living with a male companion in his house and so the I.A be rejected.

8. By order dt.23.6.2018, the Family Court, Secunderabad granted temporary custody of the child to the respondent from 10.30 am to 5.00 pm on 24.6.2018 and from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm on 26.6.2018. The Court also appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take the child from the petitioner to the respondent and later restore the child to the petitioner. It observed that the child is very much attached to the petitioner and so custody for long period cannot be given, but respondent, being the father cannot also be deprived of his legitimate right to spend time with the child. It declined to consider the Final report and certificate issued by the DCP filed by the respondent in the absence of oral evidence adduced by parties but t