The High Court · 2025

Pathuri Ran,ith Kurnar Goud, S/o. Ramulu Pathuri, aged about 38 years, Occ fouri anO Travels, presently residing at Flat No.101, First floor'.Kadaganchi's Residency, Road n6.2, Sai Priya Colony' Parvathapur, Peerzadiguda, Hyderabad, Pincode-500 039, Also Rl/o- H.No.'12-3-5513/2, Khadarpura, Mohinpura Mandal, Siddipet, T'S- 502103. ...Respondent lA 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 to hand over the child to the petitioner as the child requires the mother's care. lA NO: 3 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 suspend the orders dt.2ol12l2o24, passed in r.A.No.98Z or 2024 irr GWop.Nb.26 of 2024 on the file of the court of prl. District and Sessions Judge, at siddipet. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M R S Srinivas Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. Vanaparthi Vaishali Thir Court made thr: following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T'MADIIAVI DEVI CIvI REVI L SION PET ONNo. 139 of 2025 ITI ORDER: This civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet dated20'12'2024 in I.A.No.987 of 2024 in G'W'O'P'N o'26 of 2024 \n granting ad-interim injunction against the respondent restraining her or anybody claiming through her from interfering with the custody of his minor child namely Pathuri Shivin Goud' The interim injunction was granted tlll20 '01'2025 ' 2. The revision petitioner herein is the mother of the minor child and is respondent in I'A'No'987 of 2024 in G'W'O P'No '26 of 2024 on the file of the Principat District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet and respondent herein is the father of the minor child and the petitioner in the said I'A' For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their array in this revision Petition' 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the G'WO'P'No'26 of 2024 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 7(1)(a)(b) read with Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards 2 TMD,J C I,.P No.l39 of 2O2S '{.M.o.p.N o.rg5 0f 2022 Act' 1890' 'rhe revision petitioner and respondent were married and out of their wedlock. a child by name pathuri Shivin Goud was bom on 22'09 '2020 ' tt isr stated that due to differences amongst them, rhe marriage ended in a dir'orce.by grant of divorce decree vide on the file of the principal Senior Civil Judge Courr ar Siddipet, and the petitioner hercin reft the house of the respondent arong with nrinor chird, Pathuri shivin G'trucr' Ir is stated that the petirioner herein a,owed the respondent to visit the child and the respondent requested ana took the custody of the chird on 13'12'2024 and did not retum him to the petirioner on the strength of r:he impugne d, ex_parte injunction order. In thc O.p., the respondent has stated that the child is with him and he is taking care of the child and he even admitted the child in a school and he sought permanent custody of the minor child, pathuri Shivin Goud and has filed I.A.No.9g7 of 2024 for ad-interim iniunction against the respondent therein under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of C.p.C. The Court of the principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet, vide order dated 20.12.2024 has granted ad_ interim injunction ag'ainst the respondent therein. charenging the s,me, the present Civil Revision petition is filed by the respondent in the G.W.O.p.No.26 of 2024 i.e., rhe mother of the minor child. TMD,J C.R.P.No 139 of 2025 3 petitioner in the Civit Revision Petition raised the 4. The revtsron I.A.No.987 of 2024 in following grounds against the order G.W.O.P.No'2 6 of 2024on the file of the Principal District and Sesstons t I Judge at SiddiPet: l1 l1l. i. The principles of prima facie case' balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury to the parties seeks relief has not been established in the case for granting of ad-interim injunctton' Child is below hve years and therefore' the custody of the child should be with the mother' Under Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act' 1890' it is the Court subordinate to the District Judge which is entrusted with such matters and at Siddipet' the Senior Civil Cou( is the family court whereas, the impugned petitiorr has been filed and entertained by the District Court and theretbre' there is no jurisdiction to the District Court to entertain the above petttlon' That no appeal lies against the interlocutory order and since there is no other altemative remedy, this C.R.p. under Articre 227 of the \ 4 TMD,J C.R.l,.No.l39 of2025 The trial (lourt has not given any finding about the incompetence of the mother for having the custody of the child betow the age of 5 years and has ignored the welfare of the minor while passing the ad_ interim injunction order. 5' In support of the above contentions, the leamed counser for the petitioner has plac,ed reliance upon the following decisions: i. ii. Dalpat Kumur and another v. prahlad Singh ond othersl Pushpa Singh v. Inderjit Singh2 iii. Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant GonguT3 iv. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal a 6' Leamed counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, subrnitted that the c.R.P. is n,t maintainabre as the order under revision is an appearable order and thereibre, the petitioner either should have filed an appeal and if it is claimed to be an unreasoned ordeg the petitioner should have approached the trial court bv filing a stay vacate petition. Leamed counscl for the respondent referred to Section aA (3) of the Guardians and \! ards Act- 'G96r scc zre '] 1990 (Supp) SCC 5l ' (zoos r ; scc ru r o 1zoo9y t scc au TMD,J c-R-P-No.139 of 2025 5 1890, to submit that there was no hherent lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court in passing the order' It is submitted that the challenge by the revision petitioner is only to the docket order whereas the hnal and reasoned order has been or might have been passed by the trial Court and he submitted that he would get instructions in the matter and fumish the copy of the reasoned order, if any, if time is granted to him' He submitted that the petitioner has not raised the ground of lack ofjurisdiction of the District Court in passing the order, in the grounds raised in support of the C'R P'' and therefore' he is precluded from raising such a ground at the stage of arguments only' As regards the fachrat aspect of the case' he relied upon the aierments made in the counter affidavit frled rn the C'R'P' and other documents filed therewith' He further submitted that the child was with the respondent in the revtston petition for the past tlvo years and that he along with his family members only has been taking care of the child' He has also fited a copy of the application form and also the affendance sheet of the minor child in the Little Starz Ptay School at Patelgud4 Patancheru' Sanga Reddy and also the receipt of payment of l-ee in respect of the minor child from Ameri Kids School, Medipally dated 09'01'2025 in support of his above contentions' He has also filed photographs of the house under construction to submit that 6 TMD,J C.Fl.P.No. t39 of 2O2S they are living ilt I{yderabad for construction of the house. As regards the judgments rclicrJ upon by the leamed counsel tbr the p.rtitioner, he submitted that the factuar aspects of the case have to be tookea into and the saidjudgments are,not applicable to the facts ofthe case befbre rhis Court. 7' Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this court finds that the foremost question that arises fbr consideration is whether the District court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Guardians and Wards Act, 1g90. As rightly pointed out by lhe learned counsel for the re:;pondent, it is not the case of the plaintiff choosing the Court before whom the case is to be filed, but once a case is filed, it is for the registry to take an oQiection about the maintainabirity of the said petition before the Court a.d if no such objection is raised, the Court can entertain the petition under liection 4,4. of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1g90, and under sub-section (3) thereof the District court arso can entcrtain the application. Theref<rre, this objection ofthe petitioner is rejected. 8. As regards rhe appearability of the impugned order, this court finds that Section 47 0f the Guardians and wards Act, I gg0 refers t, orders appealable wherein an appeal shall lie to the High court aom an order made 'i I TMD.J C.R.P.No- 139 of 2O25 7 ' by a Court under Section 7' appointing or declaring or refusing to appoint or declare a guardian' In this case' though the petition is filed for declaration or granting of permanent custody of the child' the impugned order is not an order passed under Section 7 of the Act but it is an order of iniunctton against the petitioner herein' Therefore' it is not an appealable order' Since there is no other alternative remedy and the impugned order is claimed to be a non-speaking order, this Court is of the opinion that this C'R'P under zuticle 227 of the Constitution of tndia is maintainable' g. As regards the contention that since the chitd is below five years of age and therefore, his custody should be with the mother' this Court finds that the child will be five years old within a pcriod of 7 months i'e'' on 22.Og.2[25and therefore' he is less than five years of age and the trial Court has not examined this issue while granting ad-interim iniunction against the petitioner herein' Further' as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court has also not examined as to whether the three basic principles for granting ad-interim injunction i'e'' whether there is prima faciecase & balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner and whether irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the petitioner if ad-interim injection was not granted, exist in this case The judgment relied 8 TMD,J C.R.P.No. 139 ot 2O2S r.i upon by the, learned counsel for the petitioner would support these contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned ,crder lacks reasoning and is not sustainable and the C.R.p. is maintainable and the ad- interim injuncrion in I.A.No.9g7 of 2024 in G.W.O.p.No .26 of 2024 dated. 20'12'2024 passed by the principar District and Sessions Judge at Siddiper, is set aside and th,: C.R.p. is allowed.

10. Howevcr. as pointed out by the leamed counsel for the respondent, the impugned urdcr is an order of ad-interim injunction and the triar court is yet to pass finar orders in I.A.No.987 of 2024 in G.w.e,p.No .2,6 of 2024. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it fit and proper to direct the triar court to afford reasonable opportunity ol hezrring to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.987 of .2.024 in G.W.O.p.No.26 of 2024, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 30 days thereafter since academic year fbr the schools would begin and th,: child would have to go to school regularly. ll. As reganls the custody of the child in the interregnum period. this Court finds that initially this Court had granted custody of the child to the revision petitioner [or a period of one week only on the ground that the child has been awa.,' fiom her company for more than one month even as TMD,J C.RP-No.I39 ot 2025 9 per her contentions in the C'R'P' and directed the petitioner to appear before this Court along with child at 10'30 Am on 3l'01'2025' On 3101'2025' after hearing both the parties, the interim order ganted by the Court was extended for a period of further one week and the petitioner was also directed to appear before this Court along with the child on 07 '02'2025 ' On O7.O2.2O25,this Court had observed that the presence of the child before this Court is not necessary and therefore directed that the matter be listed on 10.02.2025 and interim order granted earlier was extended' On l0 '02 '2025 ' after hearing both the parties' this Court felt it necessary to hear the child and therefore, the petitioner was directed to produce the'child before this Court at 10 A.M. on ll'02'2025 in chambers' As directed' the child along with parents and grandparents i'e'' the parents of the father were all present' This Court has observed the child and upon interaction, is of the opinion that the child is not in any position to understand and express his preference and is hyperactive and needs constant care and attention' He appeared to be more inclined towards his father' The revision petitioner is a single working mother and appears to be living alone or with her father' whereas' / the grandparents are present in the father's house' In view of the same and in the sole interest of the welfare of the child in the existing circumstances' \- 10 TMD,J C.R.I, No.l39 of2025 this court is olrhe opinion that the custody of the child should be with the father and his oart:nrs rilr I.A.N..987 of 2024 in G.w.o.p.No .26 of 2024 is decided by the principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet.

12. Further, this; Court, having regard to the welfare of the child in the mind, directs the respondent to alrow the mother of the child/the revision petitioner to visit their residence once a week with prior intimation and on such visit, she may be permitted to have the company of the child alone for atleast two hours and the 1g5p6ndsn1 is also directed to permit the revision petitioner to have 'ridco cars with the child thrice week$ in thc evening hours i.e., behveen:t p.M. to 7 p.M. with prior intimation.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is allowed with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision petition, shall stand closed. i I { II SAS Sd/. T. JAYASREE GISTRAR OFFICER \ //TRUE COPY// To, LD

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, At Siddipet 2. One CC to Sri M R S Srinivas, Advocate tOpUCl I 9." 99 to Ms Vanaparthi Vaishali, Advocate ioeucl 4. Two CD Copier; I --=: ---: {trE-- TA I I i 13 HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 ORDER CRP.No.139 of 2025 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. '{