THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

C.M.A.No.310 of 2025

Mr.Palle Sriharinath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

The present Appeal arises out of an order dated 02-05-2025

passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Sangareddy in IA.No.449 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No.16 of 2024 filed by the appellant (father) for arrest of the Minor No.1 (son) and restoration of the minor

to the custody of the appellant.

2. The prayer in the GWOP was for declaration of the appellant as

guardian and for custody of the minor.

3. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the IA filed by

the appellant on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court should have transferred the GWOP to the jurisdictional Family Court instead of proceeding with the same by way of trial and

only thereafter dismissing the IA.

5. The argument made by the learned counsel is contrary to the recording in the impugned order. Paragraph 19 of the impugned

order clearly records that the GWOP should have been filed before the jurisdictional Family Court under Section 8 of The Family Courts Act, 1984 r/w Rule 5(d)(iv)(xvii) and Rule 32 of the High Court of A.P. Family Courts (Court) Rules, 2005 (wrongly mentioned as “Guardian and Wards Act, 1890” in the impugned order). The Trial Court also relies on a Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.15, Law (LA & J Home (Courts.C) Department dated 03.02.2009 for the reason that the child custody petitions should have been filed before the Family Court where the child resides or where the parties to the marriage reside.

6. More crucially, the impugned order further records that the lack of jurisdiction of the learned III Additional District Judge, Sangareddy was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the appellant at the inception of the GWOP, but the counsel did not pay any heed to such fact and continued to argue the matter notwithstanding the jurisdictional objection. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order record the detailed jurisdictional position in this regard.

7. Considering the reasons given by the Trial Court in dismissing the IA, we do not find any merit in the Appeal.

8. The appellant’s remedy lies in pursuing the appropriate applications before the concerned Family Court.

9. C.M.A.No.310 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date :02.09.2025 Vsv