The High Court · 2025

Order

TIIIT IION'lll.[. Sl{l Jt]S l lCU'l'. VINOD I\lr1\,l.{R (l I\ ll. RI'.\'lSlO\ PL'l l'l'lON No. 25ll rl 2023 oRI)l,ll{ rc prcse nt ( rr rl Ilcr isiorr Pctitiorr is lirclcrr, rl :rgairrst thc order dated .l() 07 l0l.l in l A No 4lJ ol 202.t irr ( i W'() l'] No. 8 ol 202i passccl lrr the ll AddrtionaI Fan]il\' ,',rtrrt-Ctrtl- Il AdditionaI I)rstr.icl .lrrclsc. N'lcdclra l-Malka-igrri, at N4tr lclral

2. Tlre rcr.'isiorr pctitionur ltcrcrrt is the rcsltottcl,:t I irl thc rttain ciwoP

3. The rcsporrrlcrtts ltcrcrtt has llled thc sub.jcct ( i 'I' C) P [rclore thc trial Corrrt us l)etitioncrs lrrh'G.W.C) P. No ll o'l('23 trrtder Section 7. l(). l5 ol'thc (itraldizrrr ct \\/arcls Act lE()i) ul(l Sectiort 6 of the llindu Mrrrolity & (iLrar.cliansltip Act 195(r (l rr shttrt 'llMG Acl'), R/u, Scctiorr 1 of'tlto Farnrlv Courts Act. I98 [ irrltertnttttettt custody o1- rtttnor [ro]' arrd to declare thc resptltdertt Nci. I as the legal gualdian ol rrrirtor bor i.e., rcspondcnt No.2 4 'l'he pirrtre: arc tc(crretl to us auayed ill tl)e I'l('\olli rcVisiolt petrlrou ) 2

5. 'l'lre tesponderlts lierein had filed an irtterloctttory application vide L\ No -1 l-1 o12023 in (i W'O P No 8 ol 2023 under Orcier

ll rLrlc I of ('ri'il proccdure Code (firr short'CPC') lo perrnit the rcsponrlcul No. I to act as a lcgal gtrardiart lor tlre purpose of renerving tho passpotl ol the rcspondent Nos.2 and i hcrein

6. 'l lrc briol' f acts of the casc belbrc thc Couft trelow are that respondeu t/pet it ione r No.l is the lcgally wedded wife of the petitioncr herein, that thc marliage bctweeu the petitioner and the resportdent No. I was solcrnnized orr 28 ()9.2010 al Arya Sarrlaj Mantlrr, Shah-Ati-Banda, Hyderabad, as per Hindu rites and custonls; that out ol' tltcil wedlock thcy have trvo children i.e., resportclertt Nos 2 ancl i. 7 . l he respondent No.l contended that soolr alter the marriagc, sht: rvcrrt to thc Unitcd Statcs ol Atnerica fbr ernployrnent and the petitio ner/resporrdent loined hcr in 2011 for pursuing higher studies: that thc petitioner was spousored by the respondent No l rurder a clepcrrlent visa; that she borc all the expenses for the cducation and uiaintenance o(' the petitionerin U.S.A and during I their st4L rg the Unitcd States, the petitioner got addicted to bad I l 3 viccs arrd st:Lrted subjcctilg lrcr to alttrse, ltalassn cnt, ar)d both phi,sical unil nrcntal crue ltr It. l ltc re.ptlnderrt No.l llso coutcnderi llltl tlr,'r retrrnlcd ro Irrilia rrr Aplrl 20 [.9, irl u,hich titrte sltc vvas [)rcg0 rr I rrrtlr their sccorrd clrild; tlrat the pctitioncr allegedly shorvcd rro irrtclr:st irr thc rrrainterrirnce or rvellhlc of thc responrlcnt No. I and l lrr clrrldrcrt. tltat {irrrn April 2020. thc rcspondcrrts lregarr rcsidi rr selraralclr. lirst at Krrkatpally and strltscqLrcrrtly at Slraikpct. that il.:spit,: all thc cllbrts b,v the rcspoudcnts, thr: petitroncr lrever charr-r:-'r' lris altitrrdc and r-enrained indillcrent to his cluties as a husbaud a rr latlrer. and instcacl, filed l clivorce pctition bealiug FCOI']No. i ol'1022 on 29 0i 2022 by suppressirrg irll llre rclcvant rratclial f:r,:1.r

9. -l'he petitioner'/rcspoudcrrt [ilecl a oounter alll,lr vil clcrrying llte averrtrcrtts rrrade bv resporrdent No.l arrrl colrtc l( r'rl tlral llre underlting interlocutorv application rvas Iilecl tl' res rr nde nt No. I u'ith uralicious irrtent [ry dclrtrcratcly supprcssirrg rru;teriul Iacts ['hc pelilioner, r'cslronrlcrrt fi.rrtlrcr corrli:rrdcd tltilt all t irt allcgations of crtrelll,, harrssrlent, aud abarrdonn)cnt are lhlsc zut,l lcnted. and tlrat respondelt No.l, acting Lrucler the influeuce and ir';tigation of I I 4 her rnother arrd otlrel relatives, hacl, ln fact, subjccted hirn to harassrnent I0. I'he petilioncl ltereirr c:ontended tliat hc lras rrcver neglected his rc-spurrsibilrtics arrd denicd an1, kind ol financlal dcpendence on the rcspondenl No. l; that lre is cunently wcll-employed ln a sofiware cornpany arrrl drau,s salar)' ol' approxitnately Rs 20,00,000/- pcr aunrun. whiclr is sulficien( to nraintain the nrinor childrcn. that hc lrad rocluestcd the rcspondent No. I to postpone their rrreeting rvitlr ernbassy of flcials, bLrt the rcspondent No.l labricated a false version of events and rnisrrsed the situation to lrer advantage, that thc respondeut No.l is attentpting to convert the childrcn to Islarn and even tned to conven hrrn, that the preseut petitior) is nol rnaintainablc, arrd that grantirrg guardianslup or custod!' rrghts to the respondcnt No I rvould be detrinrental to the wellarc and hrlure of thc rninor childrcn I I 'l'he I'rial Court rrpon hcaring both the partics and perusing the rccord, allowed tlrc underlying interlocutory application and obserlcd that it rs not rn disputc that the urinor boy was born in the United States arrd is a crtizen thereof by birth. It is also an admifted I 5 iact that tltc tttittor's passpoft rctlttires rcttcwal tlrc regLrlati0Lrs 0l' I j S.A, and such rcneu ul ll.c, ssitlrles tllc lll ac J( 'rda t)ce $'itll st!utatul.cs ol' [rotlr parCnts. ]'he 'l r ral Cotrrt tirrlllcr ,'bscr i'ccl tltltt tlrc rttain case is still at a prelirttirrarl' stagc antl i. I kclr to takc ct,rtsidet atrlc titttc lirI lirrirl adjudicatiolt. As thc clrrl'1': pilssport IS sct to erltirc [lY the encl ol tlie curretrt vcar, lltiltrr'. rl t.ctteN' tltc slr e irr tirlrclY ntanner ruav lcad to tlrc child bcrrrg deprivcd ol raluable rishls ltssociiltc(l \vitll LJ.S. citizerrslrrp Takrltg ttrttr aCCt)Ltllt the llractrcal rnrltlicatrons and long-te lnr co:l ;r qtrctlcessttoll as access to education, cruploy tcut, ancl inr rigratron bcllcllts, tltc I r.|irl CoLrr-t ltelrl that thc ref usal of thc petitiorlil ].(. sl)(rlldcllt Itt Co(lpctatc rn thc lcneu,al prOCcSS is tttNvart itttfctl atttl rl ll irr tlte bcst inlerest ol'the ch rld ll. 'l'hc -I-rral Courl also ollscrved that the tc:p'rtrtlcttt No I sougtrt grrardtarrslrrp only fbr a Iirrlited [)url)oscr c, I lrc rlitatc thc rcncrval of the passport, that in tltc prescttt C ASC u,lt,:r..: tltc r;rrcl Iirrc o1- thc child is parantount, the lerltrcst ol'rcspolldcllt "t" ter.rtrccl rnalallde . the rherent powers of the court Ltrdcr Sectttltt I cltnttot lrc I 6 l5l CPC, r/w Order XXXIT l{ule 4, rtral'be invoked to protect the chrld's rights and eusure substantial.itrstice 'l he Trral Courl lirrllrcl direc-tcd thc petitrorter herein to strbscribehis signature lor thc linritcd I)rrrpose i.c.,lor rcncwal ol'the passport of the child befbrc tlre IJ S embassy as per tlre date provrdeci by the rcspondcnt No I anti firrthcr obscrved that il the petrtioner herein thils to strbscribc his sigrtaltrrc ott required profbrma, then the rcspondcnl No.I will be dcclared as tclnporary g.uirrdian ol the children tbr the lirnited purpose of renerval attd regularization of the Passporl o1'IJSA l4 I leard Sri M.S Achyuth l)harathrvai, learrted cotrnscl for thc pctrtiolers and Sri Kr-ishna Kishorc KorvLrri, learned cotrrtseI for thc respondent ald penrscd tltc rccord I5 Thc petitioner oontcttcls that thc irtrpugnctl ordcr of the trial Court is solely based on tllc unsu bstarltiate(l avertncnts by tlte respondent No.1 inasuruclt as no clocutttentary prool, including the passports of the minor childrcn u,ere filcd to establish a prirna facic case; that the trial court failed to consider essential facts, such as date oFhsuance, expiry, and the actual necessity for irrrnediate $e I 1 reno\uaI ol' lhc passltor-t of the resportdent No .'. rrttl that lltc rnrpLrgned olrler-. thcrclirle, rs l'itiated b1' proccdLrlal rlrrlirrilr lrttl \\ irn'ilnts rrrte r Iclcncc oi'this Crlrrrt l() 1'lte pctLti,irncr itlso cortlctrds that the cotttt lre ('\\ l)rococds(l orr ussuurptiorts rurd prcsuutptiolts by holding tltat rro t-t,-:ttcrval rtl tlrc passporl ri'Ltrld rcsrrlt in thc rninor child losing [, S crtizcnsliip. rr rthorrt lhcrt [rcinu atrv evrdcnce on rccord lo i r['l]ort strclt lt llntirrrq, that uratttitrq g.ttardiarrsllip, cvetr firr ir Iirtttlctl l)ttl'llosc, rtr ir r cnablc tirc resPorrdcnt No. I to rltisusc tllc atrtlro rlr to ttaYr:l atrroad u,ith tlre clrililrert without prior intimatiott lo tl c p,:trttoncr. thcr tbv clclcrrlrng lhc very ob.iect of tlte pertdirrlr ( irrrrrtliarrslri;r ()rrqrnal I)clition llurt the rnrl;ugned order be sct a.rtlc rtrtd tlrc nrrttcr [rc rcrnarrdcrl fbl adjudication oll tttcr'it: irlicr- tlttc currsitleratrort ol ev irlc rtce l)ct (t)ntrd. the r-espondent No.1 coute trt: lltat tltc Ilcspoudcnt No. I hcrcin was born irr tlre IJnitcd Stlrt.:s irtc[ holtls U S c:itizcrrslrip Lry brrth. As per the rcgr.rlations ,r1 [] S A, tlrc pitssl)ofl ol'thc Resprlrtdent No2 is valid lor a lirrrrt:t ltcriod arrd pclurdic rcnewal, which mandatorily ne;r:ssitates tlre [e(lu rres \ I 8 srgnatures and corrseut ol both palents; thrrt tlic passport is due to cxpire shorlly, and any delay rn rerrevr,al *'orrld result in thc lapse ol'au csscntral leqal docurncnt illldcting. thc crtizenship rights and rntcrnational rnobility o{' lhc chrld. .l hc rcspondent No l lirrther contends that despite thc repeated rc(lucsts, the pctrtoner has lclirsed to sign lhe reqr-risite clocLrurents lor renerval ol the passporl, tlrerebl,.jeopardizing the legal status, firtrLr.,: prospects, ancl riglits of tlre rcsponderrl no 2

18. 'l'he rcspondent No.l also contcn(ls that she rs sccking fbr al)pointrDent as legal guardiarr of the miuor children solely lor the lirrrited and specific pul?osc of srgning irrrtl executing docunrents rcclLrired {irr the renewal of the passport and not fcrr pcnnanent cLrstodl' or charrge in legal guardianship. that the intent o1- the rcspondent No.I is not rnalafide, brrt is solcll, rlrivcn by concern fbr thc rvclfare of' the minor children Ilcspondent No l liuther contends that the petitioner's rcfirsal to cooperatc is not lbunded on arry [egal ground, but ralher due to the ongorng tttatrimonial disputes betweeu the parlies. 'l hercforc, rt rs jtrst zrrld necessarY, in tlrc rrrterest ofjustice and child welfare, that the respondent No.l be I I 9 apporntecl as lcgal gttartliatt lortlre lrnrited purposc ot'tlttcu'ing the l)as sport ol rcspotttlcrtt No.2, invok ing the poucrs i i thc Tltrrr'ble (lour1 rrrttlcr ( tlder XX-\ll Rulc 1 ltnd Scctit'rtt l5 | CI'( l9 I lurr c lukcu trotc ol'tlte tesltcctire ctttttctttiott: ,Lt tctl 20 At (lrc rrLrtsct. it rs to bc noted that irr tlecirlirlg tlrc apirlicrLttorr ol'lltc Ittc:cltt tiatLrrr:, tltc uclfarc ol'thl I lirtt r sltoultl lle the I ) i l r i l r I I ( ) t I I I I cotrsidetaliott, tra nscettd tlt.tl )l rcc(lllral lrarcntal (li51l tcs 'l his principlc has been repcatedl\ t.:illlrIrllccl [rr thc IIon'trle SLtptetttc ('otrrt irt vatiotts itrstaltccs l lllo llresclll casc. tltc rciirsltl ol' lhc petrtr<trtcr to extcncl c()t'scl)1 I'ot an arlrnirtistlltlirc rc(lullcrllcltt sllcll as passport tcttc',rAiu it lotlt all\ r irliil lcraI jrr:tilicutiortcanuot orcrrtde tltc itttper.ttirc tlcccl t,r l)r'()tcct rlro chrld's slrrtrrs. lcgal idcrrlity, arrd lirture rig.lr 2 I [t is lrertirrcrrt to uote that Sectiorr l3 ol' t r, I I\1(i Act- proi idcs (lrar tlrc u'cllhre ol thc tninor tnttst bt: . l l).lrillltotlll I cousideratiolr w lrilc deciding custody disputcs, r'r hrclt lcads as trnder ) 10 3 l4tel At'! gf mttr1. to he1)(tdntouttl convLltrutlrot! (1) ln the uppoinlmL'nt or tleclurttlt0 tl atn lxr.ton u: guordttttt rl rr lltttdu ntttrut b.l,tt (out't, tl: \t(lfoc oJ tJtc'ntinrtr.sltull bt tlrc l)ttI ttntou I t t tn;tdcrolttttt. ()) ,\'rt pcr:ott rhcll ht, erttttlccl to tltu' K ordtun.\hr1t ht vr ttrc of tln, pt.ot isions o{ this Act or o.f urty' ltnt' re ldtitt,,! to gtrtrnliutship rtt narrrage onrntg llit tis, l tfu cout I r.s of optttrott tltul hs or ht,r gru.dianshrp vi ll not be for the uel/utr: rl tht minor." )) Secliort l7 of' the Guzrrcliaus ancl Wards Act, lti90 rvhich deals n ith the rnattcrs to be consrdererl by tlrc Ctlurl rrr appointrlg g.uar(lian, reads as undcr (l) ltt appotnting or dccluing lhe grttudiutr of rr rnt or. the ('tnrt shull, subject lo the provisiotrs qf thi.; sectiott, hc gurtltd by ulntt, tott.tr.rlcrtll.y u,ilh tha ltrw to u,hich lhc nitnr i.:,sub1tct. uppedr.t t tht circumstutrces to be.t'u tha welftu-a of tlrc ntrttor-. ()1 ltt con.sidering what vtill be .for tha t el.fhra of tht ninor. thc ('orrrt.slnll hove regartl b the oge, scx untl re lrgtort of the nrtnor. tht' charactar and capacily of the propo.setl gtmrdtun (t d ht5 Ih'dnpss rtl kin 1o thc ntitrur, lhe v r.rht.s. tl Lttt1,, t\[ u Lleceost,d Jtu atrl, ttttd tury axi ing or pretrou.\ rclutton.t of thr: ltropo.scd {rurclrcut rrrth lhe nttnor ot hr.s properl.t'. (i) lf the mttnr ts oltl cnough tofornr ut ittelligattt ptclt,t'atrca, tlrc ('ourt moy cottsider lhot prelerence Q) lOmirtadl (5) Ihe (-rntrt shall not oppoinl or datlrut rrn.y pervtr to bc u luurdiort (t9aulst hts \ tll. " I 1i L.1 Sectiorr 6 of'the IIMG Act, deals rvith the urttti'al guardiarts of ;r Ilintlrr nlin()r au(l lhe olilcr of preler-ence . r' lrich rcads as follo*,s ''!-|'ulrtt ryfytrLtt'L/rurt' of tt Ilutltr ttrtttot . llte trrltrttr, ,!r(t'Lltutl\,tI u lttttLltt tttitut, lt t(\])ccl tii tl't'ttt,tttr'.s l.)rt.\()n u.\ \trll Ltr tt t('V)aL.t t)f llte ntitrtr's ltrryterll l,'t'-:.tudirig ht.s rt hL'r utdl rrlLi tnt\', \l i -lontl [(nul.\' !)t'opcrt)'). dr( - lLt) irt lht' -tt\t'()l Lt hrtt rtt tttr ttnttturrted girl lttnt, tltc ntotltLr I'totrLlt'd lhul tlru ttt.tloclyrtItt ttttttot t l,'t lu ttttl L()otltlrlL't; Iltt ,r,{t' tl ftt,' ta<r.s :hul/ trLl unl.y bt 1t 11/1 ,111 21tt tttl'. /hl itt tltt'('ir\( ()f dn tllteiluttult boy ot on tlla,qtttntuit t',ttnrrrrt(tl lhe.firtlrLt' t kl ttfier tlN rttlk'r. tnul Lrftr:r' lrcr. tha./hther.. i(.1 ttt ll1.'rit\t' ,)f LI lnlutt!Ll Strl tltL ltt.SLttu . l'ntvitlt,l ilt,ti rrrt 1,,'r'rtrt slntll ht, t,ttlillul to uLl u\ lt' nti'rr.ul ytrtudint t)f d tttlt)t urrlar /h<'ltntvt.stott.s oI lltt.s .sccltrtr lut rf ln' llt' ,. \'<t.\&l to ht'u llrt u, ot. (lt) r./ ltt' lr,rt Lctrultlctr-'1.',, ttrnl .firrull_v ranrtrtrccd tltt Lrtrl,l b1, l]1:cttt ttt,t .t it.'tt tl / t ut tttpt u.\tltd) ot.utt dscrlt(; (\'ttli rt t tt,tLt.st) l',xplutttlton ltt tltt.t st'Ltton, thr e\1)r!s.\tou.\ 'fhlhar' ttr Ll nutrltcr' tkt rtrtt ttt.iri,li' tt.rttltfutltcr uncl u.tlel)notlk,r. '

21. .t'hc IJoir'trlc Strprenrc Courl whils deirllrl., \vith thc exp[cssion natLrrirl guar(lian in the case of Gitltu tlarilttran v. Rescrt,e Bonk o.f lndial- lreld as undcr 1 ( I ee9) 2 SCC rlli 72 ''lhc expre,:.:itttt 'rrcrlurul gucu.drcut is etafirted in SaL tit.'rt J(t1 o/ tlt: lll'fG Act tt.: ttnl o.f tfu gtrurdicut:; nte ntroned itr ,\actrrn 6. ]lt: t(,ntt ''g atLlkot rs tle.l)ttt,i rrt StcrrOrr l(b) o/ tht lll,l() At't tr.t,t !)t't'\() huyin( lht cort, of llt<, lx:rtttr of u ninor rtr tl lns |tru1rr t.t tr ol futh, ltrs ltersttr tutl 1txt1ttr4.'. untl inL'ludts u ndtttul L tl'dton dDt()nN olheL\. lltls, tt t.\ .st't' tltdt tlt dt:fittrlittrr.t t,f 'ttittrl'ul guan/itttt ' clct ttol tnttke (ut.\ "ytrudttut ttt Itst rtnirrtliott Lt{Ltinst olh(r otkl she bcing otu o/ th,: gtanliutt IlL' lr(,trcd n1 .\((lton 6 vtnrltl trtrtknbtedl; hta tnlut ul gturdrart LI tlt./irtd irr ,\cctrort 1(c1. Ifu onl.t provi.siort to v'hich rxce pli()n t.\ ttrAL'n t.r./bunl trt ,lectiott 6(o) vhclt rcutls 't)rc -/itht'r. utul tlt,'t lttn, tltc notlt.'t Tlnt pltrLtt, ot) at .ut tor_\'r.(tatdur{, tfuNt grt,-, ,tn nnl)t!\..\ton lhtt lha nolh(t' L:cul he c(Dt.vdct'cd lo ba tha tuturul gtrrnlirur ttJ'lltL' nuntr only u/ie r the ltfatime of the .futlrr [t t.t tt,'r nt LhV) lL, tlnl t\ olhtrtr\a vcll .stltlt'l also lhttl lhc \,,liue ol th' fiut)or l lhr r td(.\l -\cn.\c t.\ lhc parantottnl constderutllon dtkl c|tn Lhr tttg tht: ltJt,tina of tltt: .fLtthcr, ( nete.s-surS, he <:urr ha rcp/atc(tLl l)l tlu nother or l other .n(il ble pe t.tott b1' an orLle t tt[ tlrc <ttrt t. rr lttr,' lo clo so t oukl ht ttr tln tnle ra.st r.tJ the vt(tn e oJ thL 25 I'heretbre, Iiom tlic statutory point of view and tbe scttled position ol [ar\'. il rs evitlcnt that ttrc temr "grrarclian" irr the ricflnrlion section lncludes both the parents. -I'his inclrrsrvc intcrprutation rlrust sirnilarl! extend to thc usage of the \\ ord in Section 6(a) ol tlre I{MG Acl. In this context, the urothcr's riglrt to lact as a natural guardian does not stand extinguished rnerely by the 13 latlrcr''s sutr ir ul Seclrort 6(a) itscll' ackrror.r,ledqr:: lhat botlr the firtlrer rtnd tlre utotltct are to l)c trcatcil as ttatrrrtl gitttttliatls Accordrrrglr.llrc cxprcsstou "alicr" trsed tltcrcin rrrLi.t lrc .:ttttstr tred irr rr rrr:rnucl llrlt uplrolLls the lcgislirtivc ittlcttt atttl r (),ts trot Ilcuiilc llrc rnothcr''s lcgal slatrrs as a gtritrtlrarr dtrrirtg tht lr e tirne ol' the lathcr' 26 llie Apcr (.otrrt rn Ravi ('ltutttlrtrt 1". LJttiort ,t1 [ttdiu' wltilc dcalin q s,ith crrstodv oI rnrnor c lr ild lield that "ll lt tt rrs trl.s,t lrld lhrl \t ltt'ntver a qtrttliott tt t\r \ hr \)t ( u (()url l)t'rltutlng lo lltt'ttr.:k ) of u tttrtutr clttlt!, tlt" tlt tllt't t.\ l(t ht dtt rth'rl ttrtt on (/)t)\td?r tt()ttt of lhc lt,qttl righls o, ltt(. put.ltc.\, hut on lir,, vtlt utrl ltntlontintltl ( rrlcrr()n rtf vhLtl trrtr lt se r,'c llu' l)L'.\l rttlt t. \i itf ll]/(' rtttrrr. " 21 llre ,\pcr Clorrrl in Lohuri Sakhotn ri v. ,\ttltltart Kodull rvhile dcalinu irrth besl nrtcrcst ol'chrld hcld that J-i. rft('1'17ui'r.strttt l',':t tttt.'tL'.\l t)f tlttltl vlttLh ts,rlt h( of lunul](/uul (t)t\ttlcrultotl t: tntfut'tl v ttle tn ttt utl ll rattnr rcnrutrr tlta lo,'e otl <tu-t,of lhe prtnntl t e. lhe nt tlrc,t Dt (rt\t' (,f th('trt[<utl rr lht'rlttldy,lrt I t t'trrs oltl llt-: dtfrrtrtrrlt of bt:t rrrtc,re.tt o/ th' child tt kLpl ltt ( tU ( gn'er ,,ttl.r t fat .'t 1r'l .\t l Na Ll (:o l0) I sc( irl 0r9) 7 s('(' 1il (l $ \ 74 in Seclion 2(9) rl the Jur.ertile Jtsttce (Cure & Prolection) Acl, )0 15, a.s lo ne ur " the basis .fbr an1 tlecisttttt taken regtu ding the chrld, to enst ! f lfilmenl ol his busr<: r'rghts ttntl neetls, identrly, sociul vell-hcrng tnd Sthl.sical, tnnlionul and rtiellectuttl derek4tntet ". 28 I lie ['lon'ble Suprerne Court in Smrili fuIadan Kunsagra v. Perr,y Kuttsagrnr', observed tl-rat there are ceftain lactors to be cousidered to decide the issue of the best rtttcrest of thc child, ancl held as ibllows: '' 1i.-j. To daculc lht is.sttt of lhe bt.\l intet e.\l oJ thc child, lhc ('ottt l vttttltl lake tnk) con.\tdat Ltliott t'tu tott.s .facktr.s, such as the aga rf the chiltl,. nalt()tLrlit) ol' the child: vvhelher lhe chilcl is of ot intelligihle uge dnd captthlc of nroking an inlelhgenl preference, the cn\.'itonment and hvng culliliotts avoiloble /or tha holistic gttnt'lh attd tlet'elol.tnent of the child; .financiol resource.s ol eilher u,[ thL, pdrL, l.\ vrhich v.otrld also bc a relevotl criteriott, olthough nol lh.. .\ole iL'le t nr irutltte .fttclor; turl .fitture pt osPects of lhe child. 29 Frorn the above-mentioned ludicial precedents and the applicable statutolv provisions, this Court is of the consiclcred opinion that in all lnatters relating to thc custody or gtlardianship of a rnirlor, the best irtterest of the chitd must prevail ovcr all other considerations, including the pcrsonal disputes bctween the o (P021) 12 scc 289 I i5 warring pareuts. flre paranrounI consicleration r'n su,:l ploceeclings rs the wellhre ard rvel[-[rerng ol ttre chitd. rvhrch rn.rst suide the Courl at cvcr'\' stage arrcl tlre rvellare arxl lrest intcl sL of t]re child rutust rcurain the giriding lactor irr all srrch procecdin!rs. -l'he (lou11 rnust give pr-roritv to thc child's ncccls arrd firturc, err crr if there are procedural or technical objcctions, the sarne slioLrld r o. oornc in tlle way of protcctins thc clrild's r ights and cnsurinq tl irt thc cliild is not aflect.eci lrv rlrc cli[]cronces betlr'eeu thr: pirlcuts 30 Taking tlre atrovc aspects into consider-ation, tiri:; Cluurt f-inds that the apprehension raised bv the pelitroncr-that rlt,: rcspoudent No.I nray uiistrsc the guardianship to travcI alrr,tad r.vithout pcnnlsslon is ltrcmaturc and speculative. lhe iurpu$rcd order docs not conler travcl rights, custody. or pcnllancltt quar( i:rnshtp on the respondent No 1 It is nrcrely a lacrlitatrvc ordet \\ ri,:h is lintited and spccific in rraturc. The Trial Cloufi has alr-eadr saleguarded against such misusc try lirnitrng the gualdi:utshi1, oplr' 1,, ,1r" passpoft renerval process 31 Furthermore, the refirsal to rcnew the pas:rport ol the respoldent t{o2 by the pctitionel nray dilcctly prejut i<:e thc child's I 16 right to rnaintain citizenship and rdentity, and potcntially deny firtrrrc entrtlcnrcnts rclaled to resrdency, education, or travel Auy kind ol' irtaction or dclur irr sLrch crrcunrsliulces u,oukl aurounl to scllous neglect o1' tlre chilcl's rvel[are, rvhich thc courts ure dutyboLrnd to pre\ ent 32 Irr light of'thc lirrer:,oirrg discussiou, this Court is ol' tlre cortsidcred vierv tlrat the trial Couft has rightly allowed the rundcrll ing irrterloctrtorv applicalron by directing the petitioner helcirr to subscribe lris siuuatrue lirr tlre rcrrcwal the passpo( ol thc rcsportdent No.2 belirre ttrc. Lj.S. ernbassy as per the datc pro'u'ided by the lesponderrt No l and ou lailure to aitix his signatrrrc on reqLrired lbrrn, llrc respondenl No.I witt be declared its tcnr poraryguard ian ol thc chiltlren tbr thc lirnited purposr: of rencwal and rcgulariziilion of tlre U. S Passport inasunch as the respondellt No. I bcing l)lothcr of the rcspondent Nos. 2 and 3, rs a natural gLrarclian even tlulrng the liletinre of'the petitioner lor the bcst iuterest of tlie rnirror childlen. Consequently, this Court linds no ground to intcrt-ele with the irnlrrrgnecl order in exercise ol its I 77 supervisory.irrrisdictiirrr rrrrdel Articlc 217 ol the )llslitution of I rr tl iir l.l For tlrc atrovc-rrre rrlionerl lcasols. this Cou l r, o1' thc vreu tltat the ordcr ot'tlre llial Clourt rlocs not strll'cr llt,r r irrtr inllrrrritt, or c[tor 3-l Accoldingly', tlrc ('rvil J(cr rsrorr I)ctrtion i: r i . oi(l ol rrrcrit itrrcl is disruisscd Thc orcler dltcd l0 ()7 l()l.l rn I \ No ll4 ol

201.1 in G.W O I'] No. li o1 20l.lis sLrstained No or,.l ri ils t() o()sts Clonseqrrcrrtlr'. rrrisccllarreous petiti()ns 1te n.1i rL rf anr shall starrd closed. No ordcl as to costs SD/- .. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSIr:;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \ SECTION OFFICER To, Malkajgiri District at Medchal. 'l . The ll Additional Family Court-cum-ll Additional Distr c, Judge at Medchat- 2. One CC to Sri. CH. SUJATHA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. SK. FAKRUDDIN ALl, Advocate [OPUC 4. Two CD Copies TTS/GR \q' HIGH COURT DATED: 2710612025 ORDER CRP.No.2541 ot 2023 , C r1 1HE SI4 re ? il E r,ot, p5 \ Ar" nrcHE o \, ) {' CRP IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND IS DISMISSED e,'d a co?' G () Yk-^ z(tr\*