Dismissed

Zaddu Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2022WP/22211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana rejected a petition for Habeas Corpus seeking custody transfer from the mother to the father. Relying on the children's expressed preference to live with their mother and finding no illegal detention, the Court dismissed the main prayer but granted the father weekly visitation rights pending a Family Court application.

What did the court decide?

Petition for custody dismissed; petitioner granted weekly visitation rights on Sunday from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM in the respondent's presence.

Zaddu Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22211 OF 2022

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Zaddu Sudhakar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age. 43Yrs, Occ. Employee, R/o.H.No.9-8-76(New), Maruthi Nagar, Road No.2, Street No.3, Near Yadagiri Theater, Saidabad Post, Hyderabad 500 059.

¶9

...pETt,oNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

Smt. Zaddu Anusha, W/o.Zaddu Sudhakar, D/o Late P Ravishakara Rao, Age. 35 Years, Occ. House wife, R/o. D.No.5-23-2814, Jaya Kivas Apartment, 2nd Floor, Jaya Prakash Nagar Colony, Near Vadlamudi Hospital, Tenali, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh - 522 201

¶13

...REspoNDENrs

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^High Court^maybe pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of HABEAS CORPUS directing the Respondent No.2, to^{produce detenuethe minor} boys, i.e, Ir/aster Zaddu Krishna Tej Yadav and Master Zaddu Dharma^{Tej Yadav,} before this Honble court forthwith, at the specified date and time, as^{directed by} this Honble Court and upon such^production, to handover their^temporaryand permanent custody to the Petitloner immediately, in the best interest of the children education, welfare, upbringing and their bright^{future and to enable the} children to attend their classes regularly and to continue their^{education at The} Hyderabad Public School Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, in the best^{interest of their} welfare in the interest of^justice.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court may be pleasedto}

¶17

¶18

direct the Respondent No.2 to produce the detenue minor boys, in person before this Honble court at the earliest, at the specified date and time, as directed by this Hon'ble court and to hand over the temporary custody of Zaddu Krlshna Tej Yadav (Date of Birth 18.10.2013), Zaddu Dharma Tej Yadav (Date of Birth 24.11.2016) and to enable the children to attend the classes, without further loss of their valuable education guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and in order to continue their education at Hyderabad Public School Ramanthapur, Hyderabad during pendency of writ petition in the interest of^justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ZADDU SUDHAKAR, PARTY IN PERSON

¶20

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶21

Counsel for Resporrdent No. 2: SRI A. KRANTI KUMAR REDDY

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIVDEI

¶24

Writ Petition No.22211 of 2022

¶25

ORDER (Per Dr. lustice Shameem Akther)

¶26

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/husband, wherein, the following

¶27

prayer is made:

¶28

"...to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of'HABEAS CORPUS" directing the Respondent No.2, to produce detenue the minor boys, i.e, Master Zaddu Krishna Tej Yadav and l\4aster zaddu Dharma Tej Yadav, before this Court forthwith, at the specified date and time, as directed by this Hon'ble Court and upon such production, to handover their temporary and permanent custody to the petitioner immediately, in the best interest of the children education, welfare, upbringing & their bright future and to enable the children to attend their classes reqularly and to continue their education at The Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, in the best interest of their welfare in the interest of^justice."

¶29

We have heard the submissions of the petitioner who appeared as party-in-person, learned counsel for respondent No.2/wife and^perused the record.

¶30

3 The petitioner contends that the marriage betwedii himself and respondent No.2 was^performed in the^year 2012. It was an arranged marriage. The respondent No.2 cheated him by suppressing the fact that their family professes Christianity. During the wedlock, they were blessed with two children, namely, Master Zaddu Krishna Tej Yadav on 18.10.2013 and Master Zaddu

¶31

DI.SA & JS. JJ \YP No.222l I ol'2022

¶32

¶33

)

¶34

Dharma Tej Yadav on 24,11,2016, the alleged detenus, Both the children are prosecuting their studies at Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. As a responsible father, the^petitioner has been bearing all the educational expenses of the alleged detenus. However, both the children were forcefully taken away by respondent No.2 in the month of March, 2022, and kept at Tenali, Andhra Pradesh state. In fact, the respondent No.2 has been suffering from pre-marital^{psychological} disorder and other health issues. Neither the respondent No.2 nor her family members have love and affection towards the alleged detenus. The atmosphere in which the alleged detenus are currently^placed is totally unconducive for their welfare and development. Being the father, the^petitioner is entitled for the custody of the alleged detenus. The^petitioner is working as Scientist in DRDO and he is well settled ancl can look after the welfare of the alleged detenus. The petitioner is entitled for the custody of the alleged detenus in the best interest of their education, welfare and for their overall development and ultimately^prayed to allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.

¶35

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/wife would contend:hat the alleged detenus have no inclination to live

¶36

l)r.SA & JS. JJ \'l' No.lll I I ol l(l2l

¶37

¶38

with their father (petitioner). The respondent No.2 and the alleged detenus have been ill-treated by the petitioner several times. With a fond hope that the petltioner would mend his attitude, the respondent No.2 bore the harassment of the petitioner for nine long years. Since there was no change in his cruel attitude, the respondent No.2 leFt the company of the petitioner along with the alleged detenus. The respondent No.2, being the natural mother, has great love and afFection and care for minor children. The allegation that the respondent No.2 is suFfering from pre-marital psychological disorder and other health issues is false. On the other hand, the petitioner is suffering from the same. The respondent No.2 is the right person to take care of the children and their education. A writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued, when a person is not in illegal/unlawful detention of anybody. Since there is no forceful or illegal/unlawful detention of the alleged detenus as alleged, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Further, while deciding the question of custody ,,. of children, the paramount interest to be taken into consideration is the welfare of the child. In the instant case, if the custody of the alleged detenus is given to the petitioner against their will and wish, it will have adverse impact upon the the alleged detenus' future. Viewed from any angle, it is not a fit case to grant the

¶39

l)r.S \ & ,1S.,,,1 \ l' \o.lll I I ol lo::

¶40

¶41

¶42

relief sought by the petitioner and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶43

This Court, vide order, dated 07.06.2022, directed the respondent No.2 to produce the alleged detenus, viz., Master Zaddu Krishna Tej Yadav and Master Zaddu Dharma Tej^yadav before this Court today, in order to ascertain their will and wish vis-it-vis their custody. Pursuant to the said order, the alleged detenus are produced before this Court today. This Court was pleased to interact exclusively with the alleged detenus in the chambers to know their will and wish. The alleged detenus appeared to be quite intelligent and capable of answering the questions put to them. Master Krishna Tej yadav has stated that he is 8 years old and studylng IV standard at West Berry School, Tenali. Master Dharma Tej Yadav stated that he 5 years old. Respondent No.2 informed to this Court that she secured admission for lYaster Dharma Tej Yadav into I Standard.,at West Berry School, Tenali, and both the children are presenily under the guardianship oi- their mother (respondent No.2). When this Court asked the alleged detenus as to with whom they intend to live, the alleged detenus stated in unequivocal terms that they are inclined to live with their mother, i.e., respondent No.2 and that they are

¶44

Dr.S^ & JS. JJ \ l' \o-211I I of 1022

¶45

)

¶46

not forcefully detained by^{anybody and expressed their desire to} continue to live with their^{mother. This Court veriFiedas to} whether the alleged detenus are^{making statementsvoluntarilyor} not. Both the children are^{mentally sound and not making} statements under^pressure or^{coercionoF anybody'Hence,this} Court is satisfied that^{the alleged detenus madestatements} voluntarily, without any^{fear or coercion oF anybody and that they} intend to live with their mother,^{i.e., respondent No.2'}

¶47

The law relating to custody^{of a child is fairly well settled' In} selecting^{proper guardianof a child, the paramount consideration} should be the welfare and^{wellbeingof the child. Whenthe Court} is confronted with conFlicting^{demandsvis-it-vis custody of} children, it has to strike the^{balance to justifythe demands' A} Court, while dealing wlth^{the cases relating to childcustody,is} neither bound by statutes^{nor by strict rules of evidence or} procedure, nor by precedents. It is^{ahumane problerp and is} required to be viewed^from human angle. While dealing^{with the} matter involving custodY^of children, the Hon'ble^{APex Court, in}

¶48

Yashita Sahu Vs' State of^{Rajasthan and othersl,in} paragraph Nos.17 and 19, observed as^follows:

¶49

'^{(2020) 3 scc 67}

¶50

¶51

Dr.S,\ & JS. JJ \ P \o:1ll L,l-:{)ll

¶52

¶53

It is well settled law by a catena^{of judgmentsthat} 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^{objectionscannot} 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^decidethe issue of custody only on the basis of^what is in^{the best} interest <tf the child.

¶54

A ch;ld, especially a child of tender^{yearsrequires 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 witheach} 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.^{Everyseparation,} every reunion may have a traumatic and^{psychosomatic} impact on the child. Therefore, it^{is to be ensured that the} ,orpl vleighs each and every circumstance^{very carefully} before de'ciding how and in what manner^{the custody of the} child should be shared between both the^parents.

¶55

Bearing n mind the above^principle laid down by the^Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is^pleased to examine the^contentions raised by both the sides to arrive at a decision in the^{instant case.} Since the alleged detenus, who appeared to be^{quite intelligent,} expressed their interest/willingness to continue ,n;"|.^the guardianship of their mother, i.e., respondent No.2, it is not appropriate to accede to the request of the^petitioner to^handover the custody of the alleged detenus to^him, as^{prayed for. Further,} since the alleged detenus clearly stated that^{they are living happily}

¶56

¶57

Dr.SA & JS, JJ wP No.222 | I of2022

¶58

¶59

under the^guardianship of their mother, i.e.,^{respondent No.2 and} that they are not forcefully/illegally detained by anybody, no case of illegal detention has been made out, as averred by^the petitioner. Disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances of the case, it is open to the^petitioner to^work out the remedies available to him before the appropriate^Court.

¶60

Further, the love and aFfection of both the^parents is required for the overall development and^growth of the children. The petitioner, being the father of the alleged detenus, is equally entitled to spend time with the alleged detenus to bestow^{his love} and affection on them. Therefore, the^petitioner cannot be^denied visitation rights. Further, there is no objection From^{the side} of^the respondent No.2 to grant visitation rights to the^{petitioner.In} view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to order^as follows:

¶61

"The petitioner herein is permitted to see and interact with the alleged detenus, who are in the custody of the^respondent No.2, on all Sundays between 03:00^PM and 06:00^{PM, in the} presence of one of the elder persons of the family of respondent No.2, at a park nearby the residence of^{respondent No.2} at^Tenali,

¶62

Dr.S.\ & JS. JJ \ P No.2?21 I ol 102?

¶63

¶64

¶65

Andhra Pradesh State. This interim arrangement shall continue for a period of four (4) weeks from today or till the petitioner files an appropriate application for appointment of guardian to the alleged detenus before the Family Court concerned, whichever is earlier. On filing of such an application by the petitioner, the Court concerned shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. Both the par,:ies shall strictly adhere to the aforesaid interim arrangement without any deviations or violations."

¶66

With the above observations/directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶67

Miscellareous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶68

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGIST

/iTRUE COPY//

'r{

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{Home Department,state of TelanganaSecretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶73

Z. iivo CCs to the Advocate^{General, High Court for the State of Telangana'} touTl

¶74

e. bne CC to Sri A.Kranti^{Kumar Reddy.Advocate (OPUC)} 4. One CC to Sri Zaddu^{Sudhakar, Party in person(OPUC)}

¶75

Two CD Copies 6. One Spare CoPY MBC BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 10/0⁶¹²⁰²²

---:--_ '---:'>.
t
a) 1 t iUN ruit ()
<<br>*-L
t
D55 p61C

¶80

ORDER

¶81

WP.No.22211 of²⁰²²

¶82

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION}

¶83

WITHOUT COSTS

Zaddu Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaddu Sudhakar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chakali Shekar , Shekaiah Vs State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Masi Vs The State of Telangana

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Bilkuis Sultana

Dayaragula Padma Vs Dyarangula Venkata Swamy

P. Supraja Vs P. Kiran Kumar

Nune Sharadha Vs Nune Ashok