CHALLA HANUMANTHU Vs. BATHULA VEERA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioners/respondents against the order dtd. 13/6/2023 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2022 in G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2021 by the learned IV Additional District Judge at Nalgonda.

(2.) G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2021 was filed by one Bathula Veera Babu/respondent herein against his in-laws for the custody of his minor son Bathula Pranav aged about 6 years and daughter Bathula Janvi Sree aged about 4 years. During the pendency of G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2021, he had also filed I.A.No.18 of 2022 seeking interim custody of the children. The trial court granted interim custody of the minor children to the respondent/petitioner pending disposal of the main G.W.O.P and directed the petitioners herein to handover the minor children to the respondent/petitioner within 15 days from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents therein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents contended that the Guardian O.P was filed in Nalgonda District, but the minor children are residing at Ponnekallu Village, Kamepally Mandal of Khammam District. As per the proviso of Sec. 9 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the District Judge, Nalgonda has no jurisdiction to entertain the main G.W.O.P, so also the present Interlocutory Application, as such the orders in the Interlocutory Application are not within the jurisdiction. He further contended that the petitioner is facing criminal charges in Cr.No.194 of 2021 under Sec. 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code r/w 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as such the trial court ought not to have allowed the petition. The trial court granted interim custody till the disposal of the main G.W.O.P and it amounts to allowing of the G.W.O.P itself by virtue of the Interlocutory Application, which is contrary and against the settled principles of law. Before allowing the Interlocutory Application the trial court failed to examine the minor children, which is pre-requisite for the Sec. 12 of Guardian Wards Act, 1980. It was also observed in para No.19 of the Order that 'Though the children are not willing to go with their father'. Even then the trial court allowed the petition and it causes irreparable injury to the children. He also stated that the petitioners are financially settled and they are providing good education and facilities to the minor children. Whereas, the respondent/petitioner is facing criminal charges and he is on bail. If the criminal charges are confirmed the future of the children will be again put to stake. One of the children is a minor girl, who has not attained puberty and as per the settled principles of law, the grandmother (mother's mother) is having the preferential right over her father in such case petitioners are taking care of the minor children out of their natural love and affection, when the respondent family denied their responsibility towards children. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order of the trial court.