PeddibhotlaSubrahmanya Ravi Shastry, Vs PeddibhotlaSatya Surya Divya

PEDDIBHOTLASUBRAHMANYA RAVI SHASTRY,, S/O SUBRAHMANYAVARA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. FLAT.NO. 216, LOTUS TOWERS, JAMMICHETTU CENTRE, MOGLRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶14

...PETITIONER

¶15

AND

¶16

PEDDIBHOTLASATYA SURYA DIVYA, W/o PeddibhotlaSubrahmanya Ravi Shastry, aged about 33 years, D.No.69-17-40/3, Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Boats Club, Sarpavararm Junction, Kakinada.

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to quash order in the l.A.No.l095 of 2024 in FCOP.No.l325 of 2024 XIV Additional District Judge Cum Judge Additional Family Court, Vijayawada dated 17-01-2025 and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶21

2

¶22

VS,J

¶23

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶24

may be pleased to suspend the order in I.A.No. 1095 of 2024 in FCOP.No.1325 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional District Judge Cum Judge Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, and pass

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Revision Petitioner to hand over the child custody to mother pending disposal of OP in trail Court by vacate the common interim order dt:29-05-2025 in C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶30

1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY

¶31

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1135/2025

¶32

Between:

¶33

PEDDIBHOTLA SUBRAHMANYA RAVI SHASTRY, S/O SUBRAHMANYAVARA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. FLAT.NO. 216, LOTUS TOWERS, JAMMICHETTU CENTRE, MOGLRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

PEDDIBHOTLA SATYA SURYA DIVYA, W/o PeddibhotlaSubrahmanya Ravi Shastry, aged about 33 years, D.No.69-17-40/3, Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Boats Club, Sarpavararm Junction, Kakinada.

¶37

...RESPONDENT

¶38

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toBeing aggrieved in not disposing the lA.No. 1096 of 2024 in FCOP.No.1325 of 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

¶39

3

¶40

VS,J

¶41

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶42

JUDGE CUM JUDGE ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA dated 17-01-2025, that the revision petition herein filed present C.R.P. for the following amongst other

¶43

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the order in I.A.No.l096 of 2024 in FCOP.No.1325 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional District Judge Cum Judge Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, and pass

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶46

1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶48

1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY

¶49

The Court made the following:

¶50

4

¶51

VS,J C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶52

COMMON ORDER:

¶53

Both these civil revision petitions are filed by the same petitioner aggrieved by the common order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned XIV Additional District Judge 3 cum 3 Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada in two applications filed by the respondent/wife. Hence, I deem it appropriate to decide both these petitions by way of a common order.

¶54

These Civil Revision Petitions came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/husband aggrieved by the common order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned XIV Additional District Judge 3 cum 3 Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada in I.A.Nos.1095 and 1096 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.1325 of 2024, whereby, the Court below allowed the applications filed by the respondent/wife under Section 12 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter be referred to as 7CPC8), granting interim custody and visiting right of the two minor children to the respondent/wife until disposal of the main petition.

¶55

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶56

(a) The petitioner/husband and respondent/wife married each other on 16.04.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs; during their wedlock, they were blessed with two children on 19.04.2016 (female) and on 21.04.2020

¶57

5

¶58

VS,J

¶59

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶60

(male). It is the case of the respondent/wife that the petitioner/husband, right from the beginning, developed aversion against her and used to pick up quarrels. Thereafter, due to conjugal disputes, both the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife got separated, but both the children are in the custody of the petitioner/husband. Thus, the respondent/wife filed F.C.O.P.No.1325 of 2024 requesting the Court below to grant custody of the minor children to her.

¶61

(b) Pending the said petition, as an interim measure, the respondent/wife filed I.A.Nos.1095 and 1096 of 2024 under Section 12 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and under Section 151 of CPC, seeking interim custody and visiting rights of the two minor children, until disposal of the main petition. The Court below, after interacting with both the minor children, passed the impugned common order dated 17.01.2025 allowing the applications filed by the respondent/wife in part, by granting interim custody of both the children to the respondent/wife until disposal of the main petition, after completion of the final examinations of both the children i.e. from May, 2025. Further, the Court below granted visiting rights to the respondent/wife on every Sunday in a month from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioner/husband filed these civil revision petitions.

¶62

6

¶63

VS,J

¶64

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶65

Heard Sri. Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sai Gangadhar Ch., learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record.

¶66

Perused the entire material available on record. The marriage of the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife took place on 16.04.2014 according to Hindu rites and customs and they were blessed with two children during their wedlock. As few conjugal disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent, they got separated and the respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.1325 of 2024 before the Court below for grant of custody of children to her. In the said petition, the respondent filed two applications for interim custody and for visiting rights of two minor children under Section 12 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which reads as under:

¶67

Power to make interlocutory order for production of minor and interim protection of person and property.4

¶68

(1) The Court may direct that the person, if any, having the custody of the minor shall produce him or cause him to be produced at such place and time and before such person as it appoints, and may make such order for the temporary custody and protection of the person or property of the minor as it thinks proper.

¶69

(2) If the minor is a female who ought not to be compelled to appear in public, the direction under sub-section (1) for her production shall require her to be produced in accordance with the customs and manners of the country.

¶70

7

¶71

VS,J

¶72

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶73

(3) Nothing in this section shall authorise4

¶74

(a) the Court to place a female minor in the temporary custody of a person claiming to be her guardian on the ground of his being her husband, unless she is already in his custody with the consent of her parents, if any, or

¶75

(b) any person to whom the temporary custody and protection of the property of a minor is entrusted to dispossess otherwise than by due course of law any person in possession of any of the property.6

¶76

Time and again, the Hon8ble Supreme Court, in catena of judgments held that in matters pertaining to custody of a child, the primary and paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and that the view of one spouse alone should not be taken into consideration. The Hon8ble Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan¹ , while dealing with custody of a child in a matrimonial dispute, held at paragraphs 20 to 24 as follows:

¶77

It is well settled law by a catena of judgments that while deciding matters of custody of a child, primary and paramount consideration is welfare of the child. If welfare of the child so demands then technical objections cannot come in the way. However, while deciding the welfare of the child it is not the view of one spouse alone which has to be taken into consideration. The courts should decide the issue of custody only on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child.

¶78

The child is the victim in custody battles. In this fight of egos and increasing acrimonious battles and litigations between two spouses, our experience shows that more often than not, the parents who otherwise love their child, present a picture as if the other spouse is a villain and he or she alone is entitled to the custody of the child. The court must therefore be very vary of what is said by each of the spouses.

1 (2020) 3 SCC 67

8

VS,J

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶83

A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every re-union may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights.

¶84

The concept of visitation rights is not fully developed in India. Most courts while granting custody to one spouse do not pass any orders granting visitation rights to the other spouse. As observed earlier, a child has a human right to have the love and affection of both the parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents.

¶85

Normally, if the parents are living in the same town or area, the spouse who has not been granted custody is given visitation rights over weekends only. In case the spouses are living at a distance from each other, it may not be feasible or in the interest of the child to create impediments in the education of the child by frequent breaks and, in such cases the visitation rights must be given over long weekends, breaks, and holidays. In cases like the present one where the parents are in two different continents effort

¶86

9

¶87

VS,J

¶88

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶89

should be made to give maximum visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody.6

¶90

It can be understood from the aforesaid observation of the Hon8ble Apex Court that the interest and welfare of the child is of paramount consideration and the well settled principle of law is that the welfare and interest of the minor child shall be considered, but not the wish of either of the parents or the technicalities. It is also well settled that any matter concerning a minor has to be considered and decided only from the point of view of the welfare and interest of the minor. In dealing with a matter concerning a minor, the Court has a special responsibility, and it is the duty of the Court to consider the welfare of the minor and to protect the minor's interest.

¶91

Keeping in view the said principle of law, this Court, on 05.12.2025, in order to have a discussion with the petitioner and the respondent, directed them to appear before this Court along with their minor children. Accordingly, on 11.12.2025, the petitioner, respondent along with their children have appeared before this Court and in-camera proceedings were conducted at 02.15 p.m.; during the course of the proceedings, this Court interacted with the petitioner, respondent and as well as the minor children. Both the children expressed their interest towards their father alone and specifically stated they have no objection to visit their mother once in a week, without disturbing their studies at Vijayawada.

¶92

10

¶93

VS,J

¶94

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶95

Now, a perusal of the impugned common order dated 17.01.2025, it can be seen that the Court below has also interacted with the children. When they were asked their willingness to go along with the respondent/wife for interim custody and visiting them, the female child expressed her interest to meet her mother and stay with her mother, however, she stated that her studies would be disturbed if the interim custody or visiting rights is fixed during the working days. Further, the female child expressed no objection if their mother visits them during alternative Sundays and for granting interim custody during summer holidays. The same view was also expressed by the male child. It is clear that the respondent/wife resides at Kakinada and the petitioner/husband, along with children reside in Vijayawada where the children are pursuing their studies.

¶96

The Court below, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, granted interim custody of the children to the respondent/wife until disposal of the main petition and after completion of final examinations of the children. Further, it granted visiting rights to the respondent/mother on every Sunday in a month from 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. However, it can be seen from the material available on record that the children, during their interaction with the Court below and before this Court, have specifically expressed their willingness to join the respondent/wife for visiting rights without disturbing their studies at Vijayawada. But, the Court below, having ignored the said

¶97

11

¶98

VS,J

¶99

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2025 & another

¶100

admission, ordered interim custody which would mean that the children have to leave Vijayawada where they are pursuing studies and get relocated to Kakinada. The said view taken by the Court below is against the willingness expressed by both the children before the Court below and as well as before this Court. Admittedly, the view taken by the Court below also effects the studies of the minor children who are presently studying in Vijayawada.

¶101

In view of the same, the impugned common order dated 17.01.2025 is hereby set-aside only to the extent of granting interim custody of the children to the respondent/wife. However, the visiting rights granted to the respondent/wife by the Court below till disposal of the main petition, permitting her to visit the children on every Sunday in a month from 10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m., remains untouched.

¶102

It has to be noted that the children are now aged about 9 and 5 years and hence, the Court below is directed to dispose of F.C.O.P.No.1325 of 2024 at the earliest, preferably within a period of one (1) year, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon8ble Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (1 supra).

¶103