Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1417 (TS)

Bhaji Ranjit Kumar v. Bhaji Ranjit Deepa

2025-11-07

P.SAM KOSHY

body2025
ORDER : 1. The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 25.03.2025 in I.A.No.1499 of 2024 in GWOP.No.07 of 2024 passed by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short ‘the impugned order’) 2. Heard Ms.R. Sandhya Rani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. K. Janaki Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The relationship between petitioner and respondent herein is that of husband and wife. 4. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the above I.A. which was filed by the respondent (wife) under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and granted interim custody of the minor child, viz., Viranshu Varshini Bhaji Ranjith to the respondent within one month from the date of order subject to completion of examinations of the child in school, failing which the respondent would proceed in accordance with law. The Trial Court also granted visitation rights to the petitioner to visit the minor child on 1 st and 3 rd Saturday of every month at the premises of DLSA / MLSA, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh from 02:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. until further orders. 5. Initially, the petitioner (husband) filed the above GWOP under Section 25 of the Guardianship & Wards Act read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 praying the Court to grant Decree of Custody of child to the petitioner. 6. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that there appears to be a strained relationship between the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife). The marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 19.10.2013. Out of the said wedlock, a female child was born on 26.08.2016 viz., Viranshu Varshini Bhaji Ranjit, i.e., more than nine years ago. As the relationship between the petitioner and respondent had further got strained, the petitioner and their family members have forcefully brought the respondent to the parental home in January, 2024 and left her there. Meanwhile, the petitioner (husband) filed OP.NO.253 of 2024 seeking for dissolution of marriage and simultaneously the above GWOP was also filed seeking for custody of the girl child. Meanwhile, the petitioner (husband) filed OP.NO.253 of 2024 seeking for dissolution of marriage and simultaneously the above GWOP was also filed seeking for custody of the girl child. It is in the said GWOP that the respondent (wife) had filed the above I.A., viz., I.A.No.1499 of 2024 in GWOP.No.07 of 2024 seeking for interim custody of the minor girl child, and which was allowed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order which is under challenge in the instant Civil Revision Petition. 7. In the above I.A., the respondent (wife) had categorically stated that she had been forcefully left at her parental home by the petitioner without the company of her daughter and without heeding to the respondent’s request to take along her daughter to the parental home. It is the further contention of the respondent that the girl child is at a growing age and is aged around nine years. She, therefore, contended that it would be more appropriate if the custody of the girl child is given to the respondent. The respondent also made a statement that she is in the capacity to take care of the girl child and also the child’s needs including that of giving best of education. Meanwhile, the respondent also stated that the above GWOP had been filed by the petitioner on the basis of false, fabricated and baseless allegations. 8. On the other hand, the petitioner in the course of filing of the above GWOP had tried to assassinate the character of respondent by making all sorts of allegations that she was living an adulterous life by having extra-marital affairs. Therefore, the petitioner contended that under the said circumstances it would not be appropriate to grant custody of the child to the respondent as it could have an adverse impact on the child’s mental and physical growth and also in the overall upbringing of the girl child. He therefore contended that the interim custody granted by the Trial Court needs to be interfered with, and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and allow the Revision. 9. He therefore contended that the interim custody granted by the Trial Court needs to be interfered with, and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and allow the Revision. 9. Having gone through the impugned order and also the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the observations made by the Trial Court in respect of what the respondent felt in the course of communicating with the minor child in the chamber of the Judge, Family Court on 10.02.2025. For ready reference, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder, viz., “7. Before passing these orders and before hearing arguments on both sides, this Court has interviewed the minor child in the chambers of Presiding Officer on 10.02.2025. It was observed that the minor child had on one hand identified the petitioner as her mother and at the same time stated that her mother is residing in another country, and showed abhorrence towards the respondent. After interviewing the child, this Court was deeply pained to observe that the child was heavily tutored and deep hatred was inflicted in her against her mother. Though the child stated that her mother used to come to her school and feed her lunch every day, she had also stated that her mother and one male were together in her presence but she could not stage when and where the incident had took place. She has many memories of her mother but she was reluctant to even recognize the petitioner as her mother. It appeared to this Court that the child was mentally tutored to such an extent that even she refused to talk to her mother at least once.” 10. 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. 11. 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 had crossed nine years of age as on date. 11. 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 had crossed nine years of age 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 nine 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. Even though the child may live with her paternal grand-mother or any of her aunts near her, but all said and done, they cannot substitute for a natural mother. 12. Further, right from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal , AIR 2009 SC 557 and also in the case of 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 above seven years, the custody 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. 13. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a possibility of the mother causing harm to the girl child but there does not seem to be any basis for the said contention. Another aspect which needs consideration is that which had also been observed by the Trial Court that, if in the way that the girl child had been tutored and poisoned, so far as her approach to the respondent-mother is concerned, is permitted to prolong there is all possibility of the minor girl child completely forgetting the necessity of a mother which in the opinion of the Trial Court was not something very appreciable. It is all the more worth noting the fact that the girl child had been in the custody of the father for quite some time and at this stage if the custody of the girl child is given to the respondent-mother with frequent visitation rights given to the petitioner-father, the order passed by the Trial court cannot be held to be bad in law or arbitrary nor can it be said to be without any basis or without taking note of the ground realities including the manner in which the child’s reaction was when the Trial Court interacted with the girl child. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 14. However, in case if the petitioner intends to have more visitation rights other than the two Saturdays fixed by the Trial Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned Family Court seeking for further relaxation or modification for the same which may include spending weekends with the petitioner at Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh where he goes to meet the girl child on weekends. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.