Allowed

Edara Ravi Kumar v. Nallam Sridevi

Telangana HC24 Apr 2013CMA/869/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this custody dispute, the trial court awarded custody to the respondent, the appellant's ex-wife and second husband, despite the appellant's objections regarding her elopement and remarriage. The appellate court set aside the order, ruling that the respondent was disentitled to custody due to her conduct, and awarded permanent custody to the appellant with limited visitation rights for the resp

What did the court decide?

Trial order set aside. Custody awarded to appellant. Respondent granted temporary custody for 15 days in summer vacation and one week each in Dasara and winter vacations.

Edara Ravi Kumar Vs Nallam Sridevi — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

C.M.A.No.869 of 2010

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 24.02.2000 at Thorredu Village, Rajahmundry. They were also blessed with two children. However, differences have arisen somewhere in the year 2006 and the respondent filed O.P.No.182 of 2007 in the Court of

¶5

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, against the appellant, for divorce. The O.P., was decreed and the same became final. The children were living with the appellant. The respondent filed G.O.P.No.576 of 2008 in the Court of District Judge, Rajahmundry, under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, for custody of the minor children. She pleaded that though her marriage with the appellant was dissolved through a decree for divorce and she had since married another person, her affection and love towards the minor children continues and that she has also settled one acre of land in Katheru Village upon the children, through a document dated 26.06.2007, naming her brother as guardian of the children. She is said to have undergone tubectomy operation and she said that her second husband is also affectionate to minor children.

¶6

The appellant filed a counter opposing the O.P. It is stated that the respondent used to be very proud of her being a good looking

¶7

woman and she never cared for him. He further stated that he made every possible effort to convince the respondent to remain with him, but the latter did not heed his request. He has also stated that though he shifted the family to Rajahmundry, on the demand of the respondent, the respondent eloped with another person, and thereafter, obtained a decree for divorce. The appellant pleaded that he took every possible care of the minor children and his mother is also looking after them.

¶8

Through its order, dated 02.09.2010, the trial Court allowed the O.P., and directed the respondent to handover the custody of the children. However, it was directed that the appellant shall be entitled to spend time with the minor children, during half of their vacation. The decree passed by the trial Court is challenged in this appeal.

¶9

Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri K.V.Seshagriri Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶10

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent came to be solved at the instance of the latter. By the time, the decree was passed, the couple had two minor children. Even according to the respondent, the children were with the appellant herein. It is about one year after a decree was obtained, that the respondent filed O.P. for custody of the minor child. By that time, she was married to another person.

¶11

Normally, the Courts would lean in favour of female spouse in the matter of granting custody of the minor children. However, once the spouse is not having the custody of the minor children, and has married another person, one has to think twice, before acceding to the request of such a spouse to get the custody of the minor children

¶12

through earlier marriage.

¶13

If one takes into account the averments contained in the counter filed by the appellant, in the O.P. filed by the respondent, it becomes evident that the respondent did not have any respect for her marriage with the appellant. One of the grounds pleaded by her while seeking the custody of the minor children, is that she has undergone tubectomy operation. Hardly that constitutes any act of sacrifice or renunciation, on her part. By all means, the operation undergone by her, was at a time when the marriage between herself and the appellant was subsisting. Further, the so-called settlement of one acre of land upon her children pleaded as a ground for seeking custody of the children, is equally unacceptable. The duplicity of gesture is evident from the fact that she appointed her brother as guardian of the minor children. The trial Court is not at all justified in allowing the O.P. If the allegation of the appellant that the respondent eloped with another person and thereafter, applied for divorce, is true, she has virtually brought disrespect not only herself and the appellant, but also to their children.

¶14

Notwithstanding the disentitlement of the respondent, to have the custody of the children on account of her acts and omissions, she can be given an opportunity to interact with them, being their natural mother. Such an arrangement was said to be in force during the pendency of the O.P. and this appeal.

¶15

Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to have the custody of the minor children. However, the respondent shall be entitled to have the temporary custody of the children for a period of 15 days during summer vacation, one week each during Dasara and Winter

¶16

vacations. The particulars of such periods shall be, as may be agreed to between the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶18

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ___________ S.V.BHATT, J. Dated:24.04.2013 GJ

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶21

C.M.A.No.869 of 2010

¶22

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶23

Date:24.04.2013

¶24

Edara Ravi Kumar v. Nallam Sridevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edara Ravi Kumar v. Nallam Sridevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy,Metal Industries Vs M/s. Sricharan Infra, Registered Partnership firm

Potluri Sampath Kumar Vs Nandamuri Subashini Glory

Gangisetty Sailaja Vs Jallapalli Sivaiah

Y.Venkateswara Rao Vs Smt. Y. Chetana [Jampala Chetana]

Chiluka Rajender Reddy , Tagore Reddy Vs Chiluka Gurva Reddy

Theme Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohd. Suleman , Goremiya