Back
not maintainable if custody per mutual agreement: Andhra Pradesh HC imposes ₹50K costs
Imposes ₹50,000 Costs on Mother for Suppressing Custody Agreement, Dismisses Petition
The has held that a petition seeking custody of minor children is not maintainable when the children are with their father pursuant to a mutually agreed settlement, and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the mother for suppressing material facts.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi dismissed the petition filed by Vasabhaktula Swathi, who sought production of her two minor sons, Tanuku Charan and Tanuku Dansuh Vahin, alleging they were forcibly taken by her husband, Tanuku Ravi Kumar.
The Hidden Agreement
The court discovered that the parents had executed a
on
, as part of a comprehensive settlement of their matrimonial disputes. The MoU explicitly stated that
"the custody and care of the children shall remain solely with the Husband."
This agreement was also noted by the
, which quashed criminal proceedings against the husband based on the settlement.
Despite this, Ms. Swathi approached the in through a , claiming her husband had absconded with the children and their whereabouts were unknown. She did not disclose the MoU or the 's order.
Convenient Amnesia Exposed
When the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner initially claimed she did not understand English. The court provided her with a legal aid counsel. However, after the lunch break, her counsel informed the court that the petitioner was fluent in English, and she read the MoU aloud in court without difficulty.
On being questioned why she had not disclosed the MoU and the
order in her representation, Ms. Swathi stated she
"did not consider it relevant."
The court was not impressed.
"Once it was agreed mutually between the petitioner and the R5 that the custody of the children shall remain solely with the husband, the children cannot be said to be in any
of the R5-father,"
the bench observed.
Misuse of Court Process
The court found that the
petition was a clear
.
"The representation was made without disclosing the aforesaid settlement; Memorandum of Understanding and the order dated
passed in Crl.P.No.9564 of 2025 by the
... The
petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has misused the process of this Court by suppression of the material facts."
The court noted that the entire machinery was set in motion on her representation, resulting in the husband, mother-in-law, and children being produced before the court. The mother's apology at the final hearing was rejected as not genuine.
Costs for the Children
The Division Bench imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on Ms. Swathi, to be deposited within three weeks. The amount is to be invested in fixed deposits in the names of the two children, with ₹25,000 each payable on attaining majority.
The case serves as a strong reminder that parties approaching constitutional courts must come with and . can lead not only to dismissal but also to , particularly when the court's jurisdiction is invoked without merit.
