Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1721

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, J.
Kilaru Suman – Appellant
Versus
Ketinani Bharathi - Reapondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2219, 3193 of 2025
Decided On : 07-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MD SULTANA BASHA
For the Respondent: PILLIX LAW FIRM

The welfare and interest of the minor child are paramount in custody decisions; a mother should ideally retain custody of a girl child aged 12, considering her developmental needs.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 26 - Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 7 to 10 and 25 - Custody and visitation of minor child - Petitioner sought interim custody and visitation of daughter during summer vacation and thereafter - Courts prioritized welfare and interest of the child, emphasizing mother's care at the child's growing age, hence dismissing the petitions. (Paras 4, 14, 15, 18)

(B) Child custody principles - Welfare of the child is paramount in custody decisions, especially for a girl child aged 12. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and respondent are a married couple with a daughter born in 2013. Due to strained relations, the petitioner sought custody and visitation rights while the respondent resides in the U.S. with the child.

Findings of Court:
The trial court rejected the petitions, confirming the mother's custody was in the child's best interest, as she was at a crucial age requiring maternal understanding.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the custody of the 12-year-old girl child and the father's request for visitation rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the child's welfare is the most critical factor in determining custody arrangements, siding with the mother due to the child's needs at her age.

Result: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. common order for multiple petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitions for interim custody and visitation rights. (Para 3 , 4)
3. background of marriage and custody disputes. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
4. context of custody petitions filed. (Para 7 , 10)
5. petitioner's argument regarding custody. (Para 11 , 12)
6. respondent's arguments against custody change. (Para 13)
7. court's reasoning on child's welfare and maternal custody. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
8. visitation rights discussed. (Para 17)
9. conclusion: petitions dismissed. (Para 18 , 19)

ORDER :

1. Since the issue arising in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties thereto are also same, the two Civil Revision Petitions are being heard and disposed of by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr.Md. Sultana Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Revisions and Mr. A. Raghuram, learned Counsel representing M/s.Pillix Law Firm, for the respondent in both the Revisions.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.2219 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.06.2025 in I.A.No.944 of 2023 in O.P.No.1837 of 2023 passed by the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner filed the above I.A. before the Trial Court under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying the Trial Court to grant interim physical custody of the minor child, viz. Sai Dishita Kilaru to the petitioner during the Summer Vacation, 2025 including a night stay at the home of petitioner during summer vacations for a period of 60 calendar days so that the child can stay with petitioner and paternal family to develop a bond based on love and affinity.

4. Similarly, Civil Revision Petition No.3193 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.08.2025 in I.A.No.946 of 2023 in GWOP.No.1837 of 2023 passed by the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner filed the above I.A. before the Trial Court under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 with a prayer to grant fortnightly visitation either in India as well as in U.S.A. on Saturday between 09.00 A.M. to Sunday 09.00 P.M. (as per Indian & USA standard timings) with a right to stay the child Sai Dishitha Kilaru on Saturday with the petitioner without any hurdles for ensuring welfare of child with love and affection of the father.

5. The relationship of petitioner and respondent in both Civil Revision Petitions is that of “husband” and “wife” respectively.

6. For convenience the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.3193 of 2025 are discussed hereunder:

7. The marriage between petitioner and respondent got solemnized on 15.08.2009. Out of the said wedlock, a female child, viz., Sai Dishitha Kilaru, was born on 10.07.2013. This fact itself would go to show that it had been around 16 years since petitioner and respondent got married, and the girl child is aged around 12 years as on date. The petitioner is living in India and is running a business, whereas the respondent has an employment in the U.S.A. with H1 Visa, and the child in issue also resides with the respondent-mother as of now.

8. Down the line, the relationship between petitioner and respondent got strained and the petitioner filed a petition before the Trial Court vide GWOP.No.1837 of 2023 under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 with a prayer to appoint the petitioner herein as guardian of the minor child, viz., Sai Dishitha Kilaru, and to direct the respondent to handover the said minor child in the custody of the petitioner permanently for her better future.

9. Meanwhile, the respondent (wife) had filed also filed a petition under Section 13(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, praying the Trial