Kilaru Suman, S/o K. S v. S. Prasad Aged about

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 issue directions to the respondent / defendant to handed over the interim custody of the petitioner immediately for period of 15 days, without further detay subject to modification of the order interaction with the child by this Hon'ble Court or by the Principal Family court for further period of interim custody of summer vacation 2025 ((i,e, 'lst June to 09th August.2025) . 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 issue directions to the respondent / defendant to handed over the interim bustody of the Girl child namely SAI DISHITHA KILARU petitioner irrespective of summer ) vacations in USA for period of 15 to 25 days, without further delay in the interest of justice. ctvtL REv tstoN PETITION NO: 3193 OF 2025 Pet,tion Under Artide 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the impugned ,rrders dated 23-08-2025 in l.A.No. 946 of 2023 in GWOp No. 1837 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Principal Family Judge cum Xilt Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Between: Kilaru Surran, S/o. K.V.S.V.Prasad , Aged about 45 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. H.No. 7-1-f'48, lst floor, Hanuman Temple, Ameerpet, Hiderabad -16 AND ...PETITIONER Ketinani Bharathi, Wo. Kilaru Suman, Aged about - 37 years,# 396, Ano Nuevo Ave, Apt 205, Sunnyvale- California-94085, United States OfAmeiica. kethisbharathiPgmail.com(M.No- ptus 12073037821) ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 101= 2025 Petitron under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavi,: filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant fortnightly visitation in USA on Saturday between 9.00 AM to Sunday 9.00- pM (uSA stancard timings) with a right to stay the child sai Dishitha Kilaiu in Hotet with the pertitioner father, if requires accompanying by her mother/ respondent herein without any hurdles for ensuring welfare of child and love and affeciion with father petitioner herein in the interest of justice Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Md. SULTANA BASHA Gounsel for the Respondent: SRI A. RAGHURAM REPRESENTTNG Iti,S.PILLIX LAW FIRM The Court rnade the following Common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil CiviI COMMOT{ ORDER Petitioa No.2219 of 20.25 PetiEn lYo .3193 of 2or25. since the issue arising in the instant civil Revision Petitions is o,e and the sarne and the parties thereto are arso sarne, the t'*ro civil Revision petitions are being heard and disposed of by this Common Order. 2' Heard Mr. Md. sultana Basha, lea:-ned counser for the petitioner in both the Revisions; and Mr. A. Raghur€un, learned counsel representing M/s.pillix Law Firm, for the respondent in both the Revisions.

3. civil Revision petition No.22L9 of 2o2s is liled by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated t6.a6.2o25 in i.A.No.94 4 of 2023 in o.p.No.1g37 of 2023 passed by the Judge, principal Family court-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner {ilett the above LA. before the ,frial court under section 26 of the Hindu tuIarriage Act, igsS praying the Trial court to granr inrerirn physical custod.y of the minor child, viz., a\ \ '1 \ ..'r.. ..2.. crP_2219&3L93-2O25 Sai Dishita Kilaru to the petitioner during the Summer Vacation' 2025 including a night stay at the home of petitioner during summer vacations for a period of 6o calendar days so that the child can s;tay with petitioner and paternal family' to develop a bond basec. on love and affinitY.

4. Simil:rrly, civil Revision Petition No.3193 of 2025 is fiIed by the petitio:ner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing t:e order dated 23.08.2025 in I.A.No-946 of 2023 in GWOP.No. t837 af 2023 passed b.!', the .'ludge, Principai Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropoliran Sessions Court, at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner filed the above t'A. before the Trial Cour[ under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, i955 read with :Section 25 af the Guardian and wards Act, i 89O with a prayer to grant fortnightly visitation either in lndia as well as in U.S.A. on Saturdal' between O9'OC A'M' to Sunrlay 09'00 P'M' (as per Inrlian & USA standard timingsl rvith a right to stay the child sai Dishitha Kilaru on saturday rvith the petitioner without any hurdl,:s for ensuring welfare of child rvith love and affection of the father.

5. The relationship of petitioner and respondent in both civil Revision F'etitions is that of "husband" and "wife' respectivelY' ::3:: ctP_2219&3193_2A25 6- For convenience the facts in civil Revision petition No.3193 of 2025 are discussed hereund er, viz., : 7' The marriage between petitioner and respondent got solemnized on 1s.og.2009. out of the said wedlock, a femare child, viz., sai Dishitha Kilaru, was born on 10.07 .2or3. This fact itself would go to show that it had been around 16 years since petitioner and respondent got married, and the girr child is aged around 12 years as on date. The petitioner is riving in India and is running a business, whereas the respondent has ^n employment in the u.s.A. with I{1 visa, and the child in issue also resides with the respondent-mother as of now. 8' Down the line, the relationship between petitioner and respondent got strained and the petitioner filed a petition before the Trial court vide GWop.No. rg37 of 2023 under sections z to 1o and 25 of the Guardian and wards Act, 19g0 with a prayer to appoint the petitioner herein as guardian of the mino r child,, viz., sai Dishitha Kilaru, and to direct the respondent to handover the said minor child in the custody of the petitioner perrn€ulentry for her better future. 9' Meanwhile, the respondent (wife) had filed also filed a petition under Section 13(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 _1 \ \ 4 crP-2219&3t93--2025 before the S,enior Civii Judge, Rayachoty, praying the Trial Court to grant a t)ecree of Divorce by dissolving the marriage that took place betwe,en petitioner and respondent on 15.08.2009 and for costs. Hovrever, uide order dated 2g.or.2025, the said petition stood d.ismissed for default for non-appearance of the petitioner'

10. Pending the above petitions before the Trial Court, the petitioner tterein filed the above Civii Revision Petition assailing theord.erdated23.08.2025inI.A.No.946of2023in GwoP.No..LB37 af 2023 passed by the Judge, Principal Famil-r, court-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan sessions court, at Hyderabad.

11. Learned counset for tlae petitioner contended that tire girl child had lpown up along in the custody of petitioner since birth; w.hentherespondenthadgonetotheUsAforemployment pu.rpose, the girl child was staying with the petitioner. It r,vas only during the year 2O2A-21, particularly d.uring covlD period' that the rt:spondent requested the petitioner and the minor child to visit UiiA which the petitioner agreed' and w'ent to the USA andsta5lt:d.therewiththerespondentforquiteSometime. Subsequently, the respond.ent assured the petitioner of sending the glrl child back after a few months. Basing on that ..(.. $p 2219U3L93-2A25 assurance, the petitioner carne back.-.Howqver, Ft .It"pondent did not honour her words and continued to retain custody of the girl child. In due course, the respondent got admitted the girl child in a school and thereafter stopped communicating with the petitioner. It is then on the situation got worse and which had led to flling of the instant Civil Revision Petitions by the petitioner. L2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the child had been in the custody of petitioner from the initial stage, i.e., for a period of around seven years, it would be improper at this stage to deny the petitioner custody of the girl child or even the interim custody of the girl chitd even if it is for a limited period; and therefore prayed for allowing of the Civil Revision Petitions by setting aside the impugxed order.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the petition, submitted that the girl child is now aged around 12 years and she is reaching the stage of puberfv rn'ith hormonal changes taking place biologically and for this reason it is not advisable at this juncture to grant custody of the girl child to petitioner rather it would be more appropriate if the girl child remains in tl:e custody of the respondent (mother). It was all the \ -) \ \ ::6:: crP_2219&3t93_2O25 more contended by learned counsel for the respondent that in to_ day's political situation that is prevailing in the u.s.A. it is not advisable to travel back to India when there are lot of issues regarding grant of visas, and if at all for any reason there is any complication that arises, the child may not be able to go back to the usA rrnd the respondent (mother) also would not be able to have the custodl,' of the child. He therefore contended that under the said situation, the Trial court considering the facts and circumstances cf the case had rightly rejected the I.A. r,ide the impugned order, and therefore, prayed that the civil Revision Petition does not warrant interference by this cour.t and the sarne deserv'es to be dismissed .

14. In the iight of the aforesaid observations rnade by ihe Trial court, thi,s Qsurt has no doubt in reaching to the conclusion that the inrpugned orrler w-as passed by the Trial court oniy after rveighing the pros and cons and also taking into consideration the oaramount interest of the girl child.

15. one r:annot brush aside the fact that the girl child in issue is a female child and the child is at a growing age, and the child is aged 12 .1ears as on date. It is at t].is stage that a female child undergoeS ;1 corsiderable hormonal changes and it is the mother ery_2219&ts199_2O2S alone who can understand the needs of t],e feryale child and tend to her needs accordingry. undisputedly, it is the werfare and interest of the minor child which is of paramount importance. As observed earlier, a child who had crossed t2 years of age would be soon attaining the age of puberty, and it is at this crucial stage that compa.ny of the natural mother is what is required most. 16' Further, the decisions rendered by the Hon,bie Supreme court in the case of Gaurav Iyagpar ,s. Sumedha Nagparr and Mausami Moitra cranguli vs. Jayanti Ganguriz, the Honble supreme court had been very categorical in holding that the first and paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and ideally a girl child aged 12 years, the custody of the child has to be given to the mother unless there are circumstances to indicate that it wourd be harmful to the girr child to be left in the custody of the mother.

17. In the said factual circumstances of the case, as regards the right of petitioner to have visitation right it is arways open for the petitioner to travel to u.s.A. a'd in the event petitioner travelling to u.S.A., the petitioner wourd be entitled to visiting l 't 'alR zoog sc 557 'atR 2oo8 sc2262 \ \ I l ::8:: ctp-22,9&3193-2025 the child or1 every weekends for rvhich the respondent (mother) would mak,: all necessary facilities and arrangements during the period of visitation. However, it is made clear that in the present prevailing riituation arr.d also taking into consideration the fact that the girl child is at a growing age and reaching the age of pubertSr. it u,ould not be advisable at this stage to give custody of girl child to the petitioner (father) except for visitation rights that he would L,ave as and rvhen he intends to visit u.s-A. where the responclenl: (motlieri s[ays r'vith the girl child'

18. For irli the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition No.3193 of 2025 deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed' consequerLtly, Civil Revision Petition No.2219 of 2025 alsc stands dis:nissed- No costs'

19. As a sequei, miscelianeous petitions pending, if anY' shall stand disniissed. SD'. A.SREENIV ASA REDDY STANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER t I I I To,

1. The Judge, Principal Family.court -cum- Xlll Additional Metropolitan Session 5 Judge, HYderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. Md SULTANA BASHA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPieb kul/PSL hv HIGH COURT DATED:07l,1112025 COMMON OREIER CRP.No.2219 o,f 2025 AND cRP NO.3193 ()F 202s DISMISSING TI{E BOTTI THT: CryIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS l?A SHE1 Te I ? ? JAtl 2U6 * ,o o ( *