HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON’BLE JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY FAMILY COURT AP PEAL No.14 OF 2021 Date:09.12.2025 Between Pasham Venkataramana Reddy …..Appellant and Smt. D.Deepa …..Respondent This Court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Sri P. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri V.Venkata Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 05.10.2020 passed in FCOP No.1200 of 2016 by the Judge, Additional Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the appellant filed the present appeal to the extent of denying him permanent custody of his minor son.

3. The appellant – husband filed the aforesaid OP under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 (for short, ‘the Act, 1980’) seeking permanent custody of his minor son Master Sameek R.Pasham. Vide order dated 05.10.2020, learned Family Court dismissed the said OP. However, learned Family Court declared him as a guardian of minor son and he, being natural father, is having every right to visit his son. Therefore, he was directed to pick up the minor child at 9.00 A.M. of every Sunday from the residence of the respondent and drop the minor son at the residence of the respondent at 9.00 P.M. after reopening of the regular Courts. Meanwhile, he can have video chat with his son between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. on every Sunday and the respondent is expected to make necessary arrangements.

4. The appellant – husband also filed a petition vide O.P.No.1187 of 2016 under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act, 1955’) seeking dissolution of his marriage dated 17.12.2012 with the respondent – wife on the ground of cruelty. Vide order dated 05.10.2020, learned the Judge, Family Court, allowed the said OP granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 17.12.2012 of the appellant with the respondent. The respondent did not prefer any appeal. The said order attained finality.

5. Likewise, the appellant has filed a petition vide O.P.No.138 of 2016 seeking perpetual injunction restraining respondent from shifting minor son forcibly from the jurisdiction of the Court from India to any other country without permission of the learned Family Court. The same was allowed vide order dated 05.10.2020. The respondent did not prefer any appeal challenging the said order and it attained finality.

6. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 17.12.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a male child on 31.01.2013 out of their lawful wedlock. Now he is 12 years old. Considering the said disputes, vide order dated 31.10.2025, we have directed the parties to attend along with minor son for interaction on 06.11.2025, on which day, they were present and we have interacted with the appellant, respondent and their son.

7. Perusal of record would reveal that even the Family Court interacted with the parties and also with the child. In paragraph No.27 of the impugned order, learned Family Court specifically mentioned that the respondent – wife came to India along with son. Whatever may be the said disputes between the parties, the minor son should not suffer due to said disputes. Minor son came to the Court for interaction with the Court. Learned Judge, Family Court made an observation that the boy is equally mingling with the father as well as the mother. The welfare of the child is paramount consideration for the Court. According to the appellant, respondent is not at all taking care of the minor child since beginning, he is looking after the welfare of the minor child and even he opted to work from home to look into the affairs of his minor son.

8. Learned Family Court further observed that when the boy is comfortable with the respondent, the appellant cannot simply ask for custody. Learned Family Court also further observed that both the parents tre