Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 365 (AP)

Maram Kishor Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-03-15

KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2024
ORDER : Kiranmayee Mandava, J. The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to produce the minor daughter of the petitioner herein, namely baby Maram Dohati, aged about four (04) years and set her at liberty. 2. The petitioner contends that he was married to one, P. Kusuma Kumari, and that during the wedlock, two (2) children were born to them, aged 12years (boy) and 4 years(girl) and that recently 13-09-2023, his wife died due to heart ailments and that he and his parents are looking after the children. It is represented that the elder child is pursuing his education in a residential school, and the younger child is staying with him and is going to school. On 01-11-2023, while the younger child was attending to her classes at school, and when his mother went to the school, to pick her up for lunch, the younger kid was found missing at the school and that on enquiry he came to know that his wife's relatives have taken away his younger kid without informing him. He states that when he tried to reach out to his in-laws, he could neither find them, nor his daughter was set back to him. Which, he states, has necessitated filing of the present Writ Petition. 3. The respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed their counter affidavit, denying the averments of the petitioner. It is stated by them that the petitioner had never taken care of his deceased wife i.e., their daughter. And that during her life time, she had taken few insurance policies and after her death, it is contended that the petitioner had demanded them to pay the insurance amounts to him, and that when they have refused to succumb to his demands, he had tried to pressurize them through anti social elements. It is further stated that he had even refused to permit them to see the elder grandson, who is studying in school staying in school hostel. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have pleaded for custody of the grandchild baby Maram Dohati, be given to them. They further stated that the death benefits of their daughter, either it be the insurance or employment benefits, should solely belong to the children of their deceased daughter Smt. P. Kusuma Kumari. 4. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have pleaded for custody of the grandchild baby Maram Dohati, be given to them. They further stated that the death benefits of their daughter, either it be the insurance or employment benefits, should solely belong to the children of their deceased daughter Smt. P. Kusuma Kumari. 4. The petitioner filed his reply to the counter affidavit of respondent Nos.5 & 6 enclosing certain photographs and certain other documents reflecting the purchases he claims to have made, for his family, etc., and contends that he had taken every responsibility of his family. He stated that he had never claimed any amounts under the insurance policy and would never even claim any of those amounts, It is further undertook by him in the reply/rejoinder that he would never claim any of those amounts realised from the insurance policies and stated that he has no objection if the same are deposited in the name of hiss minor children or any other condition the court may impose. It contended that he would only want the welfare of his minor children and their well being, with the said motive, he stated he had decided to relocate his children to USA and prayed the custody of the minor baby girl be given to him. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 07.11.2023, the 4th respondent had produced the minor girl Maram Dohati, before the Court on 10.11.2023. On the said date, we have interacted with the parties. 5. Heard Sri. Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri for the respondent Nos.5 to 9, and the learned Special Government Pleader, Sri. Y. N. Vivekananda, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 6. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner all through has been taking care of the minor children and even during the life time of his wife. The petitioner being the father and natural guardian of the minor baby girl, prays that the custody of her be given to the petitioner. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejaswini Goud and Ors., v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors (2019 ) 7 S.C.R. 335. 7. Per contra, Sri. The petitioner being the father and natural guardian of the minor baby girl, prays that the custody of her be given to the petitioner. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejaswini Goud and Ors., v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & Ors (2019 ) 7 S.C.R. 335. 7. Per contra, Sri. V.R,.Reddy Kovuuri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 would contend that the petitioner had neglected their daughter, and after the marriage he did not take her along with him to USA. It was only in 2016 for a short period he had taken her to USA. He neglected her totally, leading to her health issues, which caused her death. He vehemently contends that the custody of the minor granddaughter may not be given to the petitioner as he had never taken any care of her and had never nurtured her. And contends since the day of her birth, it is respondent Nos.5 & 6, who have raised the minor baby girl with utmost love and affection. He further contends that the writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable to seek custody of the minor children and they should approach appropriate Civil Court, seeking custody. 8. He places reliance on the following decisions: In the case of Cheenu Gopi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2022 (6) AndhLD 613(AP)(DB) and in the case of V. Veerapandian v. Kalaiselvi and another 1995(II) CTC 510 . 9. Given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. We have also interacted with the parties in our chambers on 10-11-2023. In the present case, the custody of minor baby girl by the maternal grandparents may not be considered to be illegal, however as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the minor child. We have also interacted with the parties in our chambers on 10-11-2023. In the present case, the custody of minor baby girl by the maternal grandparents may not be considered to be illegal, however as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the minor child. While, keeping in mind the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and also the decision of this Court in the case of Cheenu Gopi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, to which one of us was a party to the said judgment, it is observed as under: a) Though the respondent Nos.5 and 6, i.e., the grandparents, of the minor baby girl have raised certain aspersions regarding the attitude and conduct of their son-in-law, i.e., the petitioner herein towards their daughter, and contended that in view of the welfare of the minor baby, which should be the paramount consideration, they have earnestly prayed for custody of the minor be given to them. In the absence of any allegation or averment against the petitioner, either contending that the petitioner has re-married after the demise of his wife or as regards his vices or bad vices, or incapacity to take care of the children, except the allegation that the petitioner had neglected his wife during her life time and that with an ulterior motive to grab the amounts under the insurance policy, is seeking custody of the minor child, the custody of the minor child to the father cannot be denied. On the other hand, the petitioner through his reply/rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the respondent Nos.5 & 6, has stated that he was never aware of the existence of the so called insurance policies and has under took not to claim any of those amounts under the insurance policies. He has further stated that he has no objection, if the said amounts under the insurance, are set apart for the welfare of his two (2) minor children. Therefore in the absence of any other allegations, apart from the ones narrated above, against the petitioner herein, we do not see any reason to refuse the custody the minor girl baby Maram Dohati, to be granted to the petitioner herein 10. Therefore in the absence of any other allegations, apart from the ones narrated above, against the petitioner herein, we do not see any reason to refuse the custody the minor girl baby Maram Dohati, to be granted to the petitioner herein 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: a) The respondent Nos.5 and 6 shall handover the custody of the minor baby Maram Dohati, to the petitioner within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of the orders in the case. b) The un-official respondent Nos.5 and 6 are permitted to visit their grand children on weekends of every month, on prior intimation to the petitioner, in which case the petitioner shall accommodate their visit to see their grand children with due respect and comity. c) In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit, that he will not claim the insurance amount of his wife and he will use for the welfare of his minor children, we direct the petitioner to keep the policy amount of his deceased wife in FDs in the name of minor children of the petitioner till they attain majority. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.