SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Telangana) 722

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
G. Sri Devi, J.
Bhavana Jawhare and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Siddharth Jawhare – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 233 of 2020
Decided On : 28-12-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sagarika Mundra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Suresh Shiv Sagar, Advocate

The welfare and interest of the minor child are the paramount consideration in deciding custody matters. The fitness of the parents cannot override the consideration of the welfare of the child.

Headnote:

Custody - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - Sections 6, 7, 10 - The court granted interim custody of the minor child to the respondent/father. The court considered the welfare and interest of the minor as the paramount consideration. The court held that the father's fitness cannot override the consideration of the welfare of the child. The court also emphasized that the paramount consideration for custody of minor children is the welfare of the minors. The court allowed the mother to file a petition for custody or visitation of the child upon her return to India.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent sought custody of his minor daughter, Riddhima, from the petitioners, who were the wife and in-laws of the respondent. The 1st petitioner, the wife, had left the child with her parents and went to Canada for higher studies. The court below granted interim custody of the child to the respondent, prompting the petitioners to file a Civil Revision Petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the welfare and interest of the minor child were the paramount consideration in deciding custody matters. It emphasized that the father's fitness cannot override the consideration of the welfare of the child. The court allowed the mother to file a petition for custody or visitation of the child upon her return to India.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court below had the right to grant custody of the minor child to the respondent/father.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the welfare and interest of the minor child were the paramount consideration in deciding custody matters. It emphasized that the father's fitness cannot override the consideration of the welfare of the child. The court also allowed the mother to file a petition for custody or visitation of the child upon her return to India.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, but the court allowed the mother to file a petition seeking custody of the minor child or visitation upon her return to India. The court directed the court below to consider the petition and pass appropriate orders on merits, keeping in view the prevailing circumstances of the case.

ORDER :

G. Sri Devi, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 18.12.2019 passed in I.A. No. 270 of 2019 in G.W.O.P. No. 03 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein and whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein seeking custody of his minor female child was allowed.

2. The facts in nutshell are as under:

The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent, whereas petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner. The respondent filed G.W.O.P. No. 3 of 2019 seeking a direction to the petitioners to handover custody of Riddhima, who is the daughter of the respondent and the 1st petitioner, aged about 4 years to the respondent herein. During pendency of the said G.W.O.P., the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 270 of 2019, seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to permit him to take his daughter Riddhima from the house of the petitioners to his house for three hours on every Saturday and Sunday from 5.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. The contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, would show that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 17.03.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at R.T.C. Kalyana Mandapam, Musheerabad, Hyderabad; that the said marriage was consummated and out of wedlock they blessed with a female child by name Riddhima on 23.01.2014. It was also stated that for few months, both the 1st petitioner and the respondent led cordial conjugal life and subsequently minor differences cropped up between them and the elders of the community tried to settle the same amicably and that to a great extent they lived harmoniously except some minor issues. It was further stated that while things stood thus, in April, 2017, the 1st petitioner left the matrimonial company of the respondent herein to her parents house, along with the minor child; that though the elders of the community on many occasions tried to bring the 1st petitioner and the minor child to the matrimonial house of the respondent, but of no avail. It was also stated that in April, 2018, the respondent visited the house of petitioners 2 and 3, where the 1st petitioner was residing along with his daughter and took his daughter with him in spite of protest from the petitioners. The 1st petitioner along with petitioners 2 and 3 lodged a police complaint against the respondent and created huge hue and cry, due to which he agreed to send his daughter to the petitioners' place on the assurance of the petitioners that they will soon allow him to take his daughter to his house; that the petitioners, however, did not keep up their promise and many times, the respondent visited Pallavi Aware International School, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, in which his daughter was admitted in U.K.G. to see her and to ascertain her progress in studies, but the school authorities at the instance of the petitioners have refused to disclose any information and denied permission to meet his daughter and that on 18.08.2018, the respondent knocked the door of police, but in vain and that he came to know that in the month of July, 2018 the 1st petitioner had left to Canada purportedly for higher studies without his knowledge and that the respondent tried to talk the 1st petitioner through cell phone, but she changed her phone number. It was further stated that a girl of four years must need love, affection and care of both the parents, however, the 1st petitioner left her in the custody of petitioners 2 and 3, who are aged about 60 years and that 2nd petitioner is a diabetic patient and also suffers from high blood pressure and, therefore, the environment is not conducive for upbringing of his daughter. It was further stated that in the absence of the 1st petitioner, the respondent being a father is the best person to look after the welfare of his daughter and, therefore, prayed to is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top