Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1415 (TS)

Kilaru Suman v. Ketinani Bharathi

2025-11-07

P.SAM KOSHY

body2025
ORDER : 1. Since the issue arising in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties thereto are also same, the two Civil Revision Petitions are being heard and disposed of by this Common Order. 2. Heard Mr.Md. Sultana Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Revisions and Mr. A. Raghuram, learned Counsel representing M/s.Pillix Law Firm, for the respondent in both the Revisions. 3. Civil Revision Petition No.2219 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.06.2025 in I.A.No.944 of 2023 in O.P.No.1837 of 2023 passed by the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner filed the above I.A. before the Trial Court under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying the Trial Court to grant interim physical custody of the minor child, viz. Sai Dishita Kilaru to the petitioner during the Summer Vacation, 2025 including a night stay at the home of petitioner during summer vacations for a period of 60 calendar days so that the child can stay with petitioner and paternal family to develop a bond based on love and affinity. 4. Similarly, Civil Revision Petition No.3193 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.08.2025 in I.A.No.946 of 2023 in GWOP.No.1837 of 2023 passed by the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner filed the above I.A. before the Trial Court under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 with a prayer to grant fortnightly visitation either in India as well as in U.S.A. on Saturday between 09.00 A.M. to Sunday 09.00 P.M. (as per Indian & USA standard timings) with a right to stay the child Sai Dishitha Kilaru on Saturday with the petitioner without any hurdles for ensuring welfare of child with love and affection of the father. 5. The relationship of petitioner and respondent in both Civil Revision Petitions is that of “husband” and “wife” respectively. 6. For convenience the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.3193 of 2025 are discussed hereunder: 7. The marriage between petitioner and respondent got solemnized on 15.08.2009. Out of the said wedlock, a female child, viz., Sai Dishitha Kilaru, was born on 10.07.2013. The relationship of petitioner and respondent in both Civil Revision Petitions is that of “husband” and “wife” respectively. 6. For convenience the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.3193 of 2025 are discussed hereunder: 7. The marriage between petitioner and respondent got solemnized on 15.08.2009. Out of the said wedlock, a female child, viz., Sai Dishitha Kilaru, was born on 10.07.2013. This fact itself would go to show that it had been around 16 years since petitioner and respondent got married, and the girl child is aged around 12 years as on date. The petitioner is living in India and is running a business, whereas the respondent has an employment in the U.S.A. with H1 Visa, and the child in issue also resides with the respondent-mother as of now. 8. Down the line, the relationship between petitioner and respondent got strained and the petitioner filed a petition before the Trial Court vide GWOP.No.1837 of 2023 under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 with a prayer to appoint the petitioner herein as guardian of the minor child, viz., Sai Dishitha Kilaru, and to direct the respondent to handover the said minor child in the custody of the petitioner permanently for her better future. 9. Meanwhile, the respondent (wife) had filed also filed a petition under Section 13(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, praying the Trial Court to grant a Decree of Divorce by dissolving the marriage that took place between petitioner and respondent on 15.08.2009 and for costs. However, vide order dated 29.07.2025, the said petition stood dismissed for default for non-appearance of the petitioner. 10. Pending the above petitions before the Trial Court, the petitioner herein filed the above Civil Revision Petition assailing the order dated 23.08.2025 in I.A.No.946 of 2023 in GWOP.No.1837 of 2023 passed by the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, at Hyderabad. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the girl child had grown up along in the custody of petitioner since birth; when the respondent had gone to the USA for employment purpose, the girl child was staying with the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the girl child had grown up along in the custody of petitioner since birth; when the respondent had gone to the USA for employment purpose, the girl child was staying with the petitioner. It was only during the year 2020-21, particularly during COVID period, that the respondent requested the petitioner and the minor child to visit USA which the petitioner agreed and went to the USA and stayed there with the respondent for quite some time. Subsequently, the respondent assured the petitioner of sending the girl child back after a few months. Basing on that assurance, the petitioner came back. However, the respondent did not honour her words and continued to retain custody of the girl child. In due course, the respondent got admitted the girl child in a school and thereafter stopped communicating with the petitioner. It is then on the situation got worse and which had led to filing of the instant Civil Revision Petitions by the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the child had been in the custody of petitioner from the initial stage, i.e., for a period of around seven years, it would be improper at this stage to deny the petitioner custody of the girl child or even the interim custody of the girl child even if it is for a limited period; and therefore prayed for allowing of the Civil Revision Petitions by setting aside the impugned order. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the petition, submitted that the girl child is now aged around 12 years and she is reaching the stage of puberty with hormonal changes taking place biologically and for this reason it is not advisable at this juncture to grant custody of the girl child to petitioner rather it would be more appropriate if the girl child remains in the custody of the respondent (mother). It was all the more contended by learned counsel for the respondent that in to- day’s political situation that is prevailing in the U.S.A. it is not advisable to travel back to India when there are lot of issues regarding grant of visas, and if at all for any reason there is any complication that arises, the child may not be able to go back to the USA and the respondent (mother) also would not be able to have the custody of the child. He therefore contended that under the said situation, the Trial Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case had rightly rejected the I.A. vide the impugned order, and therefore, prayed that the Civil Revision Petition does not warrant interference by this Court and the same deserves to be dismissed . 14. In the light of the aforesaid observations made by the Trial Court, this Court has no doubt in reaching to the conclusion that the impugned order was passed by the Trial Court only after weighing the pros and cons and also taking into consideration the paramount interest of the girl child. 15. One cannot brush aside the fact that the girl child in issue is a female child and the child is at a growing age, and the child is aged 12 years as on date. It is at this stage that a female child undergoes a considerable hormonal changes and it is the mother alone who can understand the needs of the female child and tend to her needs accordingly. Undisputedly, it is the welfare and interest of the minor child which is of paramount importance. As observed earlier, a child who had crossed 12 years of age would be soon attaining the age of puberty, and it is at this crucial stage that company of the natural mother is what is required most. 16. Undisputedly, it is the welfare and interest of the minor child which is of paramount importance. As observed earlier, a child who had crossed 12 years of age would be soon attaining the age of puberty, and it is at this crucial stage that company of the natural mother is what is required most. 16. Further, the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal , AIR 2009 SC 557 and Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs. Jayanti Ganguli , AIR 2008 SC 2262 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been very categorical in holding that the first and paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and ideally a girl child aged 12 years, the custody of the child has to be given to the mother unless there are circumstances to indicate that it would be harmful to the girl child to be left in the custody of the mother. 17. In the said factual circumstances of the case, as regards the right of petitioner to have visitation right it is always open for the petitioner to travel to U.S.A. and in the event petitioner travelling to U.S.A., the petitioner would be entitled to visiting the child on every weekends for which the respondent (mother) would make all necessary facilities and arrangements during the period of visitation. However, it is made clear that in the present prevailing situation and also taking into consideration the fact that the girl child is at a growing age and reaching the age of puberty, it would not be advisable at this stage to give custody of girl child to the petitioner (father) except for visitation rights that he would have as and when he intends to visit U.S.A. where the respondent (mother) stays with the girl child. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition No.3193 of 2025 deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Civil Revision Petition No.2219 of 2025 also stands dismissed. No costs. 19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.