Partly allowed

Shiv Prakash Bansal, v. Ankit Agarwal

Telangana HC2 Jul 2013FCA/217/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment appeals against a Family Court order granting custody of a minor daughter to the biological father. The High Court modified the order, awarding custody to the father while granting specific visitation rights to the deceased mother's parents and directing that inherited properties vest directly in the minor.

What did the court decide?

Custody awarded to respondent; appellants granted visitation rights Saturdays-Sundays and school vacations; certain properties directed to devolve directly on the minor.

Shiv Prakash Bansal, Vs Ankit Agarwal — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

F.C.A.Nos.217 & 218 OF 2013

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice LNR,J )

¶4

The petitioners in F.C.O.P.No.760 of 2009, on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, who are appellants herein, filed these appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.

¶5

Appellants 1 and 2 had a daughter by name Radhika Agarwal. On 27.06.2004, she married the respondent herein. They had a daughter by name Dipansha Agarwal. Radhika Agarwal committed suicide on 18.06.2009. Ever since, the custody of the minor child is said to be with appellants 1 and 2, their son, the 3^rd appellant, and their daughter-in-law, the 4^th appellant. Alleging harassment on the part of the respondent, several proceedings ensued even during the life time of Radhika Agarwal. At one stage, they are said to have initiated steps for mutual divorce also.

¶6

The appellants filed F.C.O.P under Sections 7 to 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act to appoint appellants 3 and 4 as guardians for the baby girl Dipansha Agarwal and to restrain the respondent from illegally removing the child from their custody.

¶7

The respondent filed a counter opposing the OP. He pleaded that, being the father and natural guardian, he is entitled for the custody of the child. He pleaded that his child

¶8

is not being made available to him and his family members after the death of his wife. In addition that he has filed a counter-claim claiming custody of the child.

¶9

Through the order under appeal, the trial Court dismissed F.C.O.P.No.760 of 2009 and allowed the counterclaim.

¶10

The respondent filed caveat. At the stage of admission itself, extensive arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. We have also interacted with the parties and the minor child.

¶11

It is rather unfortunate that a highly educated woman hailing from a affluent family committed suicide, rendering the pretty child, motherless. There is every justification for the appellants to claim custody of the child notwithstanding the limited scope of their being declared as guardians. The respondent, on the other hand, is also entitled for the custody of the child, being the father and natural guardian. However, in his anxiety to resist the plea of the appellants he made certain reckless and objectionable allegations in the counter-claim against his deceased wife which do not an individual with prudence and culture. When the same was pointed out, he filed a memo seeking permission of the Court to withdraw paragraphs 6, 9, 10 and 14 from the counterclaim. We direct that the same be deleted.

¶12

Notwithstanding the unstinted love and affection

¶13

exhibited by the appellants on the one hand, and the respondent on the other, we are of the view that, being the natural father, the respondent shall be entitled to the custody of the child, subject, however, to the right of the appellants to have custody of the child in the form of visitation rights. Appellants 1 and 2 have agreed for such a course of act:-

¶14

It is brought to the notice of this Court that substantial items of moveable and immoveable properties were kept in the name of the deceased Radhika Agarwal. The parties are unanimous in their opinion that all such properties shall devolve upon the minor child and appellants 1 and 2 shall act as guardians for administration of such properties, till the girl attains the age of majority.

¶15

Hence, we allow the appeals-in-part and modify the order under appeals directing that:

¶16

(a) the custody of the minor child Dipansha Agarwal shall be with the respondent;

¶17

(b) the appellants shall have the right of visitation in respect of the minor child from the evening of Saturday to the evening of the following Sunday, of the first and third week of every month;

¶18

(c) they shall also be entitled to have custody of the child for half of the duration of vacation of the school or educational institution, as the case may be, and the date shall be agreed through mutual consent;

¶19

(d) if there is any family function in the house of the appellants, they shall be entitled to take the minor child to their house, with prior intimation to the respondent; and

¶20

(e) in view of the mutual agreement between the parties, it is further directed that the respondent shall not have any

¶21

right whatever over a plot of 1000 sq.yards in Sy.No.67/AA, Jayabheri Enclave, Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, purchased in the name of Radhika Agarwal and the property shall devolve upon the minor alone.

¶22

Similarly the immoveable properties in the form of

¶23

following items:

¶24

i) all the balance in savings account at HSBC Bank, Somajiguda Branch in A/c No.081282493006;

¶25

ii) all the balance in account at UCO Bank in A/c No.06800110010426;

¶26

iii) the TATA AIG insurance policy No. U320009781;

¶27

iv) ULIP investment at HSBC Bank Somajiguda;

¶28

v) mutual funds investment at HSBC Bank Somajiguda;

¶29

vi) fixed deposits at HSBC Bank, Somajiguda;

¶30

vii) PPF Account No.10260704607 with State Bank of India, Jeedimetla Branch; and

¶31

viii) silver dinner set and other silver articles released as per inventory in Cr.No.676 of 2009 on the file of Nampally Court, Hyderabad;

¶32

shall also be devolved upon the minor child viz., Dipansha Agarwal and these properties shall be under the management and administration of appellants 1 and 2.

¶33

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of.

¶35

_________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶36

S.V.BHATT, J 02^nd July, 2013 Lrkm

Shiv Prakash Bansal, v. Ankit Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Prakash Bansal, v. Ankit Agarwal

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

The Spl. Dy. Collector, Nalgonda Vs Gudigopuram Anasurya Devi (Since Died ) and 3 Othrs

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad. Vs S. Shyam Rao and Another

Satyamma ,M. Kamalamma and Another Vs Kothakapu Bal Reddy and 10 Others

P.Rupendra Kumar, Vs The Singareni Colieries Company Limited

Smt. L. Radha Vs Panyala Raji Reddy

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Mummaneni Venkataramudu