Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 20026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J
Sakhinetipalli Manjula – Appellant
Versus
Sakhinetipalli Satya Ranga – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1064 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Family Law / Guardianship
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Court does not act as appellate court for re-appreciation, but must interfere when trial court order suffers from fundamental infirmity or material error that goes to root of decision-making process.
Facts of the case:
Petitioner-mother challenged the trial court order granting interim custody of the minor child to the respondent-father. The trial court's order was premised on findings purportedly derived from a personal interaction with the child regarding the child's preferences and demeanour. During the revision proceedings, it was admitted that no such interaction had occurred.
Findings of Court:
Court held that the order was founded on a factual premise admitted to be non-existent. The error was not merely procedural but struck at the root of the judicial discretion exercised. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court for fresh adjudication.
Issues: Whether an order based on a non-existent personal interaction with a minor child is sustainable and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial determinations derive legitimacy from the process through which conclusions are reached. If a core foundation of an order (e.g., child's preference recorded in an interaction) is found to be based on an event that never occurred, the order is legally unsustainable and must be remitted.
Result: Revision allowed; order set aside and matter remanded.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Ramakanth
For the Respondents: Bommera Rahul Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts leading to child custody order challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding validity of trial court's interaction with the child. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. analysis of trial court's reliance on a non-existent personal interaction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. court's reasoning on jurisdictional impropriety and necessity of remand. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 5. final orders and temporary arrangements pending fresh trial. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 22.06.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals : Yes/No
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish to see the fair copy of judgment : Yes/No
Cases referred:
10. (2001) 8 SCC 97
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25.02.2026 passed in I.A. No.71 of 2026 in G.W.O.P. No.8 of 2024 (for short, “the Impugned Order”) on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for short, “the learned Trial Court”), whereby interim custody of the minor child was granted to the respondent-father subject to certain conditions.
I. FACTS IN BRIEF:
2. The petitioner and the respondent are the parents of Master Sakhinetipalli Ajay Surya, a minor child aged about 11 years. Matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties and several proceedings are stated to have been instituted by each side. It is not in dispute that prior to passing of the Impugned Order, the minor child was residing with the petitioner-mother at Nizamabad.
3. The respondent-father instituted G.W.O.P. No.8 of 2024 under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking guardianship and custody of the minor child. During pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent filed I.A. No.71 of 2026 under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking interim custody of the minor child pending disposal of the G.W.O.P. The petitioner opposed the said application by filing a detailed counter affidavit disputing the allegations levelled by the respondent and asserting that the welfare of the child required continuation of custody with her.
4. The petitioner relies upon the earlier orders passed in the proceedings and contends that interim custody had not been granted to the respondent on earlier occasions and that there was no substantial change of circumstances warranting a different view.
II. IMPUGNED ORDER:
5. By the Impugned Order dated 25.02.2026, the learned Trial Court allowed I.A. No.71 of 2026 filed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and granted interim custody of the minor child to the respondent-father pending disposal of G.W.O.P. No.8 of 2024. The Impugned Order further provided visitation rights to the petitioner-mother on alternate weekends from Saturday 10:00 a.m. to Sunday 5:00 p.m., daily telephonic and video access, restrictions regarding relocation of the child and change of school without prior permission of the Court, and other conditions intended to safeguard the welfare of the child pending disposal of the main G.W.O.P.
6. A perusal of the Impugned Order further discloses that while granting interim custody to the respondent-father, the learned Trial Court recorded that it had personally interacted with the minor child and also recorded observations regarding the child’s wishes, demeanour, emotional responses, spontaneity and preference to stay with the respondent-father.
7. The aforesaid observations form a substan
