Dismissed

Ch.Srinivas Deepak v. Chilukuri Jyotsna ,Kondapalli Jyotsna and anothers

Telangana HC20 Apr 2022WP/19657/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to declare a Lok Adalat custody award void and claiming custody rights, finding no ground to interfere without fraud allegations and noting Article 226 is not appropriate for custody declarations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Ch.Srinivas Deepak Vs Chilukuri Jyotsna… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19657 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ch.Srinivas Deepak, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age. 43 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rl/o.H.No.2-3-1 4311 , 13 No. Basthi, LKtr/ Road, Jagadamba centre, Yellandu Town and mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Chilukuri Jyotsna @Kondapalli Jyotsna, W/o. Srinivas,D/o. Late Kondapalli Subba Reddy,Age. 4 1 years, Occ. Software E ngineer, Rl/o. H .No.6-2241 5, Gudipadu Road,Back side to Water Tank, Sathupalli town and mandal, Khammam District.

¶11

Child Welfare Committee, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Bhadradri Kothagudem.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to

¶14

a) declare that the Lok Adalat Award^passed in Lok Adalat case No.128712019 of Lok Adalat Bench, Khammam dt. B/1^'1l2019 is null and void.

¶15

b)further declare that the petitioner is entitled to have till custody of minor child Suryavarshit Reddy from the respondent No-'1 , with all rights.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the^'1st respondent to forthwith hand over the custody of minor child Suryavarshit Reddy to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: None Appeared

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAI{ AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶22

WRIT PETITI ON No.1 9657 of 2o22

¶23

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Si Justice ujjal Bhuyan)

¶24

Heard Mr. Srinivas Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

This petition has been filed, under Article 222 of tbe Constitution bf India, seeking the following reliefs',

¶26

"al declare that the Lok Adalat Arvard passed in Lok Adalat case No.l2g7/2O19 of [,ok Adalat Uench, Khammam dt:08.1 1.2O19 is null and void.

¶27

b) Further declare that the petitioner is entitled to have the custody of minor child Suryavarshit Reddy from the respondent No. I with all rights.

¶28

c) and pass such order or orclers as this llon,hle Court may deemed lit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶29

It appears that petitioner had filcd a petition under Section 25 of tie Guardians and Wards Act, 1U9O lor return of custody of the minor child, which was registcred as G.O.P No. 147 /2OlZ on the file of the Judge, F-amily Courr, Khammam-

¶30

UB,J&SN,J w_t9657 _2022

¶31

¶32

The matter was referred to l,ok Adalat. On 08.l 1.2019, the following award was passed by the Lok Adalat Bench at Khammam:

¶33

AWARI)

¶34

"1. That the respondent agreed to hand over the custody of minor child, Surya Varshith, who is under her custody, to the petitioner during vacations such as Dussera, Pongal and Summer and also on Second Saturday and Sundays if those days are declared as school holidays, at the cost of the petitioner. The petitioner agreed for the same.

¶35

That the petitioner has to pick up the minor from the house of the respondent or from the school rvhichever is convenient and after completion of holidays, the minor has to be handed over to the respondent at her residence.

¶36

That the petitioner has no objection to keep the minor child, Surya Varshith in the custody of the respondent. 4. Both parties agreed not to file any type of cases in respect of minor child, Surya Varshith for any retief,s in futu re.

¶37

The petition accordingly stood settled and award passed- Both parties shall bear their own costs.

¶38

l-loth parties have attested their signatures in evidence of their consent for the terms of award."

¶39

We find that both the parties had agreed to the settlement and had filed terms of compromise. Not only the parties were prescnt, their respective lawyers were also present. It was recordcd that the compromise was arrived at on frec will

¶40

3 UB,J&SN.J wp 19657 2022

¶41

I I

¶42

and volition. Thereafter, the Lok Adalat Bench recorded the compromise and on that basis passed the award.

¶43

It is now contended that respondent No. I has lodged compraint against petitioner before the police after respondent No. I handed over the child to him. Thereafter, police referred the matter to the Child Welfare Committee.

¶44

Be that as it may, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the award passed by the Lok Adalar. Supreme Court in Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddyt has clarified that Lok Adalat Award can only be interlere d with in a writ proceeding when there is fraud or misrepresentation. There is no such allegation in the present proceeding while assailing the award.

¶45

Insofar the second prayer is concerned, in a proceeding under Article 222 of the Constitution of [ndia, no declaration can be made, as sought for by the petitioner, that the petitioner should have the custody of the minor child. It is open to the petitioner to seek his remedy under the appropriate statutc.

¶46

'(:ots) t.l Suprerne Coun Cases 4g0

¶47

Uts,J&SN.J wp_t9657 ]O22

¶48

¶49

9 . That being the position, we do not find^anygood

¶50

ground to entertain the writ petition.

¶51

lO. Writ Petition is, accordingly dismissed. However

¶52

there shall be no ordcr as to costs.

¶53

11 As a sequcl, miscellaneous applications^pending, if

¶54

any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

ASSISTAN??-J8fll{T*

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRt SR|N|VASA RAO MADTRAJU , Advocate tOpUCl

¶60

Two C.D. Copies

¶61

One Spare Copy.

MRC

GJP

$n>

HIGH COURT DATED:2O1O412022

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.19657 of 2022

¶68

! s"f.1 7i.
\1
t)
ij 2 1 JljL 2022
c
".'.;,('':!

¶69

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

.q--K

Ch.Srinivas Deepak v. Chilukuri Jyotsna ,Kondapalli Jyotsna and anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Srinivas Deepak v. Chilukuri Jyotsna ,Kondapalli Jyotsna and anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Navanatha Educational Society Vs The Income Tax Officer

M/s. Sri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Limited Vs State of Telangana

Harish Ganapathi Js Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Chinta Venkateshwarlu and 2 others Vs State Bank of India

Sri Ramreddy Mekala Vs Piramal Captial and Housing Finance

Tummala Anitha Vs Union Bank of India