Y ANUSHA CHOWDHARY v. THE STATE OF AP

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 may be pleased to extend the interim custody of minor child Mr. Rutvik to the writ petitioner pending the disposal of the main writ petition No. 13359 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondent no. 1/Petitioner to handover the custody of child Ruthick S/o V. Hemanth aged about 2 V2 years to the Petitioner/Respondent no. 4, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. TRIMOORTHY K G

2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025 The Court made the following: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) This petition, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, has been filed by the petitioner, for obtaining custody of her son, from respondent No.4, who is her husband.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was married to the 4th respondent on 03.02.2022 and they have son, who is 2 ½ years old now. The petitioner and the 4th respondent had certain differences, due to which they were not staying together. Apart from these differences, it also appears that employment of these two persons had also kept them apart.

3. The petitioner states the petitioner had shifted Bangalore to Hyderabad in February, 2025 at which stage the 4th respondent had taken away the child. The petitioner states that on 2nd April, she was informed that her son was ill and admitted in Vellore hospital. Upon receiving such information, she rushed to Vellore hospital. Later, the child was discharged from hospital. The petitioner is said to have requested the 4th respondent and his parents, to send her son along with her. Further, the 4th respondent and his parents that they would send the son of the petitioner along with the 4th respondent to Bangalore as she would be working there. Thereafter, the 4th respondent, who had initially evaded coming to Banglore, had come to Bangalore on 23.04.2025, due to the involvement of the elders, 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025 in the family of the petitioner. However, the 4th respondent, on 23.04.2025, again forcibly took away the child back to Chittoor on 24.04.2025 after which, she gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Chittoor, I Town Police Station. This complaint was not acted upon by the 3rd respondent, due to which she was approaching this Court.

4. The petitioner would also contend that she was not being allowed to see or communicate with her son and that her son should be handed over to her.

5. The 4th respondent, after receiving notice, had engaged a counsel, who informed this Court, on 22.05.2025 that the child would be produced before the Court within a week time. On 29.05.2025, the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent along with the child were present and had given custody of the child till the next date of hearing to the petitioner. On the agreement of both sides, a mediator was also appointed to see if the disputes between the parties could be resolved. The matter was posted from time to time, for giving an opportunity for reconciliation between the parties. However, on 02.09.2025, this Court was informed by the parties that mediation was not successful. The petition was posted for hearing and heard.

6. Sri K. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent had forcibly taken away the child, from the custody of the petitioner, on 23.04.2025 and the photographs, produced by the petitioner, would clearly show the 4th respondent running away with the child. The 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025 learned counsel would submit that in such circumstances, this Court would have to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, for granting custody of the child to the petitioner, inasmuch as the child was illegally and forcibly taken away from the custody of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the best interest of the child, would be the primary concern of this Court and a child at the age of 2 ½ years would be looked after better by the mother rather than the father and accordingly, custody should be granted to the petitioner.

8. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the 4th respondent disputed all the allegations made by the petitioner in her pleadings. In addition to the denial of the pleadings of the petitioner, the 4th respondent set out his own version of the facts alleging that the differences between the petitioner and the 4th respondent arose out of certain loan transactions. The 4th respondent submits that the petitioner had abandoned the child. He states that on 01.03.2025 an attempt was made to reconcile the petitioner and the 4th respondent, for which, the father of the 4th respondent had attended a meeting in a restaurant in Nagole, Hyderabad. It is stated that various family members of the petitioner came to the restaurant and behaved aggressively with the father of the 4th respondent after leaving the child with the father of the 4th respondent and taking back the petitioner with them. He submits that the 4th respondent having been given custody of the child, in this manner, had been looking after the child. As an attempt to reconcile with the 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025 petitioner, the 4th respondent states that he had brought the child from his house in Chittoor to Bangalore on 23.04.2025. However, he found that the petitioner and her mother, who was also there with the petitioner, were attempting to take away the child, to Hyderabad, on 24.04.2025. The 4th respondent states that he ran away from them along with his child on account of the attempt of the petitioner and her mother to take away the child from him.

9. Both sides have raised various allegations and pleadings against each other, both on account of their behaviour as wife and husband, apart from their behavior as parents of the child. This Court does not propose to go into these allegations as the said allegations would have to be proved in a properly constituted trial.

10. This Court agrees with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the best interest of the child is the primary concern of the Court. The question, of where the best interest of the child would be better served, is the question which can be answered, only after proper evidence is recorded, in a properly constituted proceedings, before the appropriate Court. This is a question which cannot be answered by this Court, merely on the pleadings raised by both sides.

11. In the circumstances, it would only be appropriate to dispose of this Writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for deciding the custody of the child. 7 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025

12. This would still leave the question of interim custody of the child. The pleadings in the Writ petition as well as the counters filed by the 4th respondent clearly show that the child was in the custody of the 4th respondent from March, 2025, at the least. The allegation of the petitioner, that the 4th respondent forcibly took away the child on 23.04.2025 in Bangalore is negatived by the contention of the petitioner herself, that the 4th respondent had came from Chittoor to Bangalore on 23.04.2025 along with the child. This would clearly show that there was no forcible taking away the child, by the 4th respondent, on 23.04.2025, as the child was already in the custody of the 4th respondent on 23.04.2025. The present custody of the petitioner, over the child, was on account of the interlocutory orders of this Court granting interim custody to the petitioner. In fact, the 4th respondent had not denied the interim custody, to the petitioner with the hope that there could be reconciliation. The 4th respondent, had also stated, in Court, on the day of arguments, that he was still willing to reconcile with the petitioner so that the child and the petitioner and the 4th respondent could live together as one family. In the circumstances, it would only be appropriate that custody of the child is restored to the 4th respondent. It also appears that the 4th respondent is staying in Chittoor, along with his parents, and there are enough female members of the family, who would also be able to take care of a child of tender years. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to handover the child to the 4th respondent within a 8 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025 period of one week while leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court, seeking custody of the child.

13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ____________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J RJS 9 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025 THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.13359 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

31.10.2025 RJS 10 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025 11 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.13359 of 2025