KARUNA GADDE Vs. SUDARSANA RAO GADDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.P.No.2222 of 2016 on the file of the learned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally at Miyapur, was instituted by Karuna Gadde against her husband, Sudarsana Rao Gadde, under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1890') seeking permanent custody of their minor son, Ayush Krishab Gadde, now aged over 8 years, and to declare her as his natural guardian. I.A.No.685 of 2016 was filed by her therein seeking temporary custody of the child pending disposal of the O.P.

(2.) Initially, by order dated 14.02.2017, the trial Court granted temporary custody of the child to the mother. Aggrieved thereby, the father filed C.R.P.No.859 of 2017 before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. By order dated 27.02.2017, this Court took note of the fact that the trial Court had dealt with the matter in an utmost casual and perfunctory manner and set aside the order under revision. The matter was remanded to the trial Court for consideration afresh. Reference was made by this Court to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in GAURAV NAGPAL V/s. SUMEDHA NAGPAL, 2009 1 SCC 42 to the effect that the paramount consideration in determining the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child is the 'welfare of the child' and not the rights of the parents or what they say.

(3.) Upon interaction in camera with the child and the parents, this Court opined that as the child had been with his father for several months and had not seen his mother except for a few times, there was every possibility of his getting alienated from her. This Court also found signs of such alienation during the interaction and concluded that such estrangement from the mother was not in the overall interest of the child. The custody of the child was therefore directed to be handed over to the mother till disposal of the I.A. afresh, but the father was permitted to see the child and spend time with him every day in the evening hours at the mother's residence. The I.A. was directed to be disposed of within a time frame and both parties were given liberty to adduce additional evidence, which was to be given due weightage by the trial Court while considering the I.A. on its merits.