Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1075
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. MADHAVI DEVI, J
Pathuri Priya Rai – Appellant
Versus
Pathuri Ranjith Kurnar Goud – Respondent
CRP/139/2025
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, and the trial court must apply established principles for granting injunctions.
Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 4A and 7 - Civil Revision Petition against ad-interim injunction regarding custody of minor child - The court found that the trial court did not establish the principles for granting injunction and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition - The child is less than five years old, and the welfare of the child is paramount. (Paras 4, 9, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that the District Court can entertain applications under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as no objection was raised at the registry level. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the mother, challenges an ad-interim injunction granted to the father regarding the custody of their minor child, Pathuri Shivin Goud, following their divorce. The father claims to have taken care of the child and sought permanent custody. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the ad-interim injunction unsustainable due to lack of reasoning and established principles, allowing the Civil Revision Petition and setting aside the injunction. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the District Court and the principles for granting ad-interim injunction. (Paras 4, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the welfare of the child is paramount and that the trial court failed to apply the necessary principles for granting an injunction. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed with directions for custody and visitation rights.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the custody dispute (Para 3) |
| 2. grounds raised by the petitioner (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. counsel's submission on maintainability (Para 6) |
| 4. jurisdiction of the district court (Para 7) |
| 5. appealability of the order (Para 8) |
| 6. child's age and custody considerations (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. civil revision petition allowed (Para 13) |
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet dated 20.12.2024 in I.A.No.987 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2024 in granting ad-interim injunction against the respondent restraining her or anybody claiming through her from interfering with the custody of his minor child namely Pathuri Shivin Goud. The interim injunction was granted till 20.01.2025.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the mother of the minor child and is respondent in I.A.No.987 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet and respondent herein is the father of the minor child and the petitioner in the said I.A. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array in this revision petition.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2024 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 7(1)(a)(b) read with Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The revision petitioner and respondent were married and out of their wedlock, a child by name Pathuri Shivin Goud was born on 22.09.2020. It is stated that due to differences amongst them, the marriage ended in a divorce by grant of divorce decree vide H.M.O.P.No.185 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Siddipet, and the petitioner herein left the house of the respondent along with minor child, Pathuri Shivin Goud. It is stated that the petitioner herein allowed the respondent to visit the child and the respondent requested and took the custody of the child on 13.12.2024 and did not return him to the petitioner on the strength of the impugned ex-parte injunction order. In the O.P., the respondent has stated that the child is with him and he is taking care of the child and he even admitted the child in a school and he sought permanent custody of the minor child, Pathuri Shivin Goud and has filed I.A.No.987 of 2024 for ad-interim injunction against the respondent therein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. The Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet, vide order dated 20.12.2024 has granted ad- interim injunction against the respondent therein. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondent in the G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2024 i.e., the mother of the minor child.
4. The revision petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition raised the following grounds against the order in I.A.No.987 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet:
i. The principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury to the parties seeks relief has not been established in the case for granting of ad-interim injunction.
ii. Child is below five years and therefore, the custody of the child should be with the mother.
iii. Under Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it is the Court subordinate to the District Judge which is entrusted with such matters and at Siddipet, the Senior Civil Court is the family court whereas, the impugned petition has been filed and entertained by the District Court and therefore, there is no jurisdiction to the District Court to entertain the above petition.
iv. That no appeal lies against the interlocutory order and since there is no other alternative remedy, this C.R.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed.
v. The trial Court has not given any finding about the incompetence of the mother for having the custody of the child below the age of
