Allowed

Challa Hanumanthu v. Bathula Veera Babu

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023CRP/2084/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition challenging an interlocutory order granting interim custody to the father. Setting aside the lower court's order, the High Court directed the disposal of the main custody petition while granting the father visitation rights one Sunday a month pending the final decision.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody order set aside; Father granted visitation rights on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm; Main custody petition directed to be disposed expeditiously.

Challa Hanumanthu Vs Bathula Veera Babu — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAYOF NOVEI/IBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Smt |USTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

Civil Revision Petition No. 20M of 202i

¶6

Revision under Article 227 ol rhe Constitution of India, against the order dated 13.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2022 in G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2021. on the file of the [V Additional Disrtrict]udge at Nalgonda.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Challa Hanumanthu, S/o. Chinnulu, Aged. 56 years, Occupatiory Agriculture.

¶9

Challa Venkata Ramanamma, W/o. Hanumanthu, Aged. 50 years, Occupation, Agriculture.

¶10

Challa Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Hanumanthu, Aged.36 years, Occupatiory Agriculture.

¶11

All are R/o. Ponnekallu Village, Kamepally Mandal, KhammamDistrict.

¶12

AND

¶13

...Petitioners/Respondents.

¶14

¶15

Bathula Veera Babu, S/o. Muthaiah, Aged. 35 years, Occupation.AR Constable, R/o. H.No.NG /72/3/3, NG Colony, Ramagiri,Nalgonda Town and District, N/o, Bakkamanathulagudem Village Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶16

...Respondent/ Petitioner.

¶17

IA NO: 1.OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders passed in I.A No.18 of 2022 in G W.O.P No. 36 of 2021 dated 13.06.2023 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda pending disposal of the present CRP in the interests of justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao

¶20

Counsel for the Respondenh Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

PSS. J CI?l'No 208.+ of2023

¶24

HONOURABLT SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶25

CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.2O84 OF 2o.23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

.^{This Civil Revisionpetition} is filed by the revision petitioners/ respondenrs against the order dated 13.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2022 in G.W.O.p.No.36 of 2O2l by the learned IV Additional District Judge at Nalgonda.

¶28

G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2O2l was filed by one []athula Veera Babu/respondent herein against his in_laws for the custody of his minor son Bathula pranav aged about 6 t ears and daughter Bathula Janvi Sree aged about 4 years. During the pendency of G.W.O.p.No.36 of 2021, he had also filed I.A.No.18 of 2022 seeking inrerim custody of the children. The trial court granted interim custody of the minor ctLildren to the respondent/ petitioner pending disposal of the main G.W.O.P and directed the petitioners herein to han<lover the minor children to the respondent/petitioner within 15 days from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents therein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶29

¶30

PSS, J CRP.No.2084^irt 2o23

¶31

The learned counsel for the^{petitioners/respondents} contended that the Guardian O.P^{was hled inNalgonda} District, but the minor children are residing^{at Ponnekallu} Village, Kamepaliy Mandat of Khammam District.^{As per the} proviso of Section 9 of Guardian and^{WardsAct, 189O,the} District Judge, Nalgonda has^{no jurisdictionto entertainthe} main G.W.O.P, so also the^{presentInterlocutoryApplication,} as such the orders in the^{Interlocutory Applicationare not} u.ithin the^{jurisdiction.} He further^{contendedthatthe} petitioner is facing criminal charges in^{Cr'No.194 of 2021} under Section 498-4 and 306^of Indian^{Penal Code r/w 3 and} 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,^as such the^{trial court ought not} to have allowed the petition. The trial^{court granted interim} custody till the disposal of the main^{G.W.O.Pand it amounts} to allowing of the G.W.O.P itself^{by virtueof the Interlocutory} Application, which is contrary and against^thesettled principles of law. Before allowing the Interlocutory^Application the trial court failed to examine the^{minor children, whichis} pre-requisite for the Section 12 of Guardian^{WardsAct,198O.} It was also observed in^{para No.19 of the Order that uThough} the chitdren are not utilling to^go uith^their fatherl^Even

¶32

¶33

PSS, J. CllP No 2084 of 2023

¶34

then the trial court^{allou'ed the petition and itcauses} irreparable injury to^{the children. He also stated that the} petitioners are financially^{settlcd and they are providinggood} education and facilities^{to the minor children' Wher:eas, the} respondent/ petitioner^{is facing criminal chargesand he is on} bail. If the crimina,l^{charges are confirmed the future of the} chiidren will be^{again put to stake' One of the childrenis a} minor girl, who has^{not attained pubertyand as per the} settled principles^{of law, the grandmother(mother'smother) is} having the preferential^{right over her father irr such case} petitioners are taking^{care of the minor childrenout of their} natural love and affection,^{when the respondent family denied} their responsibility^{towardschildren. Therefore,prayed to set} aside the order of the trial^court.

¶35

The parties herein are^{referred as petitionerand} respondents AS arrayed in the triai^{court for the sake of} convenlence.

¶36

The marriage of the^{petitioner rvith Bathula Sandhya} was solemnized on 06.05.20i3 and^{after marriage they} started residing at Nalgonda^Ton-n and out^{of their wedlock} they were blessed with one male child Bathula^{Pranav aged}

¶37

¶38

¶39

PSS CRP No.208'1 ol 2O23

¶40

about 06^years and^{one female child Bathula Janvi Sree aged} about O4 years. The^{petitioner is rl''orkingat Nalgonda Police} Head Quarters as^{AR Constable. On 24'05'2021,when} petitioner went to duty,^{his l'u'ife has committed suicide by} hanging to the ceiling^{fan rvith chunni in the house and on} seeing the sarrle, the^{children have informedtothe} neighbours and^{they rushed to the spot and found her dead} body, as such,^{his brother in-law ChallaNageshwaraRao} (respondent No.3 herein)^{gave complaintand stated that} previously the petitioner^{and his familymembersharassed} the deceased^{Sandhyaphysically and mentally for additional} do$,ry. Whereas the^{petitioner contended that she developed} illegal intimacy^{with one Nagendra Babu, who is also an AR} constable and neighbour^{of the deceased.Petitionerand his} family members^{havenoticedthe whatsapptext messagesof} the deceased with^{the saidNagendraBabu and came to know} about their^{illegal intimacy and as the said secret relationship} came to light,^{she might have committedsuicide' To cover up} the illegal intimacy,^{respondent No.3 lodgeda false report} against the^{petitionerin Cr.No. 194 of 2021 for the offences}

¶41

¶42

./.

¶43

PSS..I CRF No 2O3+ oI2023

¶44

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 ol- Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dou'ry. Prohibition^Act.

¶45

The petitioner was remanded to^judicial custody on 25.O5.2O21 in Crl.M.P.No.204 of 2O2l on 04.06.2O2 1.^When he was in jail, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 along with their henchmen have forciblv took awav his children from the custody of his parents from his house at Nalgonda Town. After releasing on bail, he went to the house of respondent Nos.l to 3 on 13.06.2021 to take back his children to his house, but the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 along with their relatives did not allow him to see his children zrnd refused to sent them along with him and the respondent Nos.l to 3 threatened him with dire consequences and denied to handover the children to him. In the month of July, 2021, he tried to place the matter before the elders as the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were trying to separate his children from him and not allowing him to see them, but the respondent Nos.1 to 3 dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. On 15.09.2021, he came to knou, that respondent Nos.1 to 3 i11treating the minor children petitioner is the natural guardian of his children and he is a Graduate and working as an AR

¶46

¶47

PSS, J- CRP No 2084 ol 2023

¶48

Constable at Nalgonda Police Head Quarters and earning^good enough to provide good education and good standard of iiving to his children. Whereas, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are illiterates and living in a snrall village and they have no sufficient income. He has been depositing Rs.4,OOO /-^per month towards LIC policies of his children. The^petitioner further submits that his parents and brother are hale and healthy and willing to look after the needs of the minors in his absence. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not providing basic necessities and therefore, requested for the interim custcdy.

¶49

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stated that they are the maternal grandparents and they are looking after the chridren with proper love and affection. Petitioner never approached them to take back his children even after his release. They are providing quality education and future of the children is safe in their hands and stated that Respondent Nos.l and 2 healtle condition is good and earning good income. The^petitioner tried to kidnap the children with the aid of anti-social elements. Respondents are having fertile lands and^providing peaceful atmosphere to the children. The petitioner is young person having 35 years and there is every possibility of

¶50

7',

¶51

¶52

PSS,.' CRt'No.2Ot3,+ of 2023

¶53

contacting second^{marriage, as suchLhe secondrt'ife may not} treat the minors^{properly,therefore, putting the minors in the} lap of the petitioner is highl-y^{dangerousand prayedto set} aside the order of the trial court.

¶54

The trial court considering the rival^{contentionsof both} sides opined that the respondent^Nos.1 and^{2 are aged about} .-^ 56 and 50 years respectivel-v as on the^{date of filing the} petition. The trial court observed that though the children are not uttlling to go rlith their father but interest^and utelfare of the children is to be paramount consideration Jor^{theireducationand other necessities required in} their liaes and accordingly granted interim custody^{to the} peti iioner/ father.

¶55

Admittedly, a criminal complaint is^pending against^the petitioner and he is on bail. No doubt, he is a Graduate and vvorking as AR Constable in Nalgonda District.^{Whereas, the} grandparents of the minor children are residing in the village, but immediately after the death of their daughter the-v have taken care of their graldchildren and^joined tl-rem. in a school ancl provided basic amenities to them. Petitioner stated that his parents are also residing w,ith him and they u,ill take care

¶56

¶57

I'SS, J CRP No^2O8+ot2023

¶58

of the children,^{but the children informed that noone} available to^{look after them, as their paternalgrandparents} are also attending^{labourr'"'ork, as such they could not take} care of them.^{Admittedly, for more than 2 years' the children} are residing^{with their maternal grandparents ald very much} attached to^{themand they are under the influenceof their} maternal^{grandparents and they are not willing to go with} their father.^{As the father filed G'W'O'P for custodyof the} minor children,^{it is for the trial courtto grant custody after} completion^{of entire evidenceon merits' As this is an interim} application,^{visitation rightscan be grantedones in a month} i.e., on first^{Sundayof every monthThe petitioner is at liberty} to take the^{children by10:OO am inthe morning and} handover^{them to the maternal grandparents by 5:00 prn'}

¶59

In the result,^{the Civil Revision Petition is allowedby} setting aside^{the order of the trial courtpassedin I'A'No' 18 of} 2022 in^{G.W.O.P.No'36of 2O2I by the IV Additional District} Judge, Nalgonda.^{As the father of the minor childrenalready} hled G.W.O.P^{for custody of the minor children'he is entitled} for visitation^{rightsand he is at liberty to take his children} along with^{him on lirst Sunday of every month by 1O:00 am}

¶60

¶61

¶62

PSS. .r. (lllP No 2081 ol 2023

¶63

and to handover the children b1' 5:00 pm to Lhe maternal grandparents. However, trial Court is directed to dispose of the G.W.O.P itself as expeditiousll' as possibie: to avoid further complications in the execution of the visitation rights. There shall be no order as to costs

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶65

shi,-ll stand disposed of

¶66

¶67

/ /TRUECOPY/ /

¶68

sd/-T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

l-t' SECTIONOFFICER

To,

The IV Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. 2. One CC to Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC]. 3. One CC to Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two CD Copies.

JCK \ VH

HIGHCOURT

DATED:06/17/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.2084 of 2023

t
t
1 t{E S TA I€
a-
t) 0 B DEI 2[23 oi:
!//
'/
OF,::. r
tr;- .

¶79

Allowing the C.R.P. without costs.

Challa Hanumanthu v. Bathula Veera Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Challa Hanumanthu v. Bathula Veera Babu

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

Muppalaneni Subhadra and Another Vs G Venkanna and Another

Apsrtc and Another Vs Arun Gandhi

D.R. Leelavathi, Vs Ch. Rajeshwaramma

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Elpula Butchalu and 3 Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mastry G Narayana Swamy and Another

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Another Vs Bathula Kotamma , Koteswaramma and 2 Others