IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD * * *

FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.40 of 2023 Between:

Dr.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Raja Rao Appellant VERSUS Dr.Manjula, W/o.D.Praveen Kumar Respondent ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 21.11.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ___________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J * THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.40 of 2023 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar %Dated 21.11.2025 # Between:

Dr.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Raja Rao Appellant VERSUS Dr.Manjula, W/o.D.Praveen Kumar Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioner : Party-in-Person ^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri K.V.Sekhar < GIST :

> HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred :

1. 2022 SCC Online SC 937,

2. (2020) 3 SCC 67 3. (2017) 3 SCC 231

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.40 of 2023 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar Heard the appellant/husband, who is appearing as party-in-person and Sri K.V.Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent/wife.

2. The present Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned II Additional Family Court-cum-II Additional District Judge at Mechal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal in G.W.O.P.No.788 of 2014 dated 31.10.2022 in dismissing the petition filed under Section 7 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the appellant/petitioner requesting for the custody of the minor child.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the GWOP are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 30.05.2010, that the appellant and respondent lived together from June, 2010 to December, 2012 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a baby boy on 25.05.2012.

4. It was contended in the OP that from January, 2013, the respondent/wife deserted the appellant and from November, 2013, there was no communication with the respondent and she was staying with their son at her parents’ house without the consent of appellant. The appellant tried for reconciliation with the help of relatives, but in vain. On the other hand, the respondent filed a dowry harassment case against the appellant and his parents. The appellant herein filed a Pre-Litigation case vide PLC No.80 of 2014 before the Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District intending to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. However, after the respondent filed a Domestic Violence Case against him, the appellant has given up the Pre-Litigation Case.

5. The appellant contends that the respondent has not taken care of the minor ward and though the appellant requested the respondent for extension of maternity leave, since she was pursuing the Post Graduate at Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad at that time and take care of the child till he attains six months, the same was refused by the wife. The appellant also engaged the services of a Maid for the welfare of the child, and despite the same, the respondent started arguing with the appellant on trivial matters and used to threaten to commit suicide along with the boy. In spite of repeated requests, the respondent did not respond to his calls and once she went to Hussain Sagar Lake to commit suicide along with the boy, which shows her instability.

6. It is also contended that the respondent physically abused the appellant and slapped the boy showing her frustration that she has to take care of the child by devoting time and money. The appellant contends that when the respondent refused to take care of the child, he has availed leaves to take care of the respondent after her delivery and managed the child from six months to one year age. Since, the respondent/wife