Allowed

Sri Shishir Kumar, v. Smt. Roopa Devi

Telangana HC14 Jun 2013CRP/6347/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Revision Petition challenges an order dismissing an application for interim custody of a minor. The High Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the lower court's order prioritizing the child's welfare and custodial stability, though it directed the lower court to dispose of a related petition within six months.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of; direction to lower court to dispose of O.P.No.665 of 2011 within six months; liberty to move for visitation rights.

Sri Shishir Kumar, Vs Smt. Roopa Devi — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6347 OF 2012

¶3

Dated: 14.06.2013

¶4

Between:
Sri Shishir Kumar	.. Petitioner
And
Smt. Roopa Devi	.. Respondent

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6347 OF 2012

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

By the order under revision, the application filed by the revision petitioner for interim custody of the minor child, who is in the custody of the respondent herein, was dismissed by the Court below observing as under:

¶9

“In a case of child custody the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. So as per the petition averments the respondent went to her parent’s house in October, 2010. So since then the child is in the custody of the respondent-wife. So now the petitioner-husband wants the custody of the child. So if the child is ordered to the petitionerhusband the child may not adjust with the petitionerhusband because of his tender age. So already the respondent-wife admitted the child in the school and the child is school going stage. So the claim of the petitioner-husband for custody of the child cannot be considered. So the petitioner in IA 367/11 is not entitled for custody. Accordingly the point is answered.”

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Revision. The Court below while declining to grant the interim custody has given cogent reasons and such order passed on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the welfare of the child cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to dispose of O.P.No.665 of 2011

¶12

following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application before the Court below for visitation rights of the child.

¶13

Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

¶14

civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶15

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶16

Date: 14.06.2013 Ivd

Sri Shishir Kumar, v. Smt. Roopa Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shishir Kumar, v. Smt. Roopa Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadali Satya Murthy S/o Sreeramulu Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Mokhasa Kalavapudi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Annem Anjireddy, Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Penta Venkata Rao, Vs Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society

Lakki Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Akbal Vs Chinta Venkata Reddy