USIKE NAGA RAMULU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not granting custody of 'un-named Baby Girl' aged about 31/2 months in favour of the petitioner, who is the maternal grandfather of the baby child and failure to give medication to the child, who is suffering with severe health complaints of respiratory system and not looking at the paramount interest of the un-named Baby Girl in favour of the petitioner till the biological mother of the child attains the majority of 18 years as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to give the custody of the child to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is the father and respondent No.5 his wife are the parents of respondent No.4. In the year 2024, one Manda Prashanth had taken away the minor daughter of the petitioner from the custody of the petitioner by saying illusionary words and had sexual intercourse with the minor daughter of the petitioner, due to which she conceived and gave birth to a female child on 26/10/2024 with a severe health complaint of the respiratory system and the child had undergone medication and treatment with Ankura Hospital and Russh Hospital, Hyderabad, as an inpatient. The doctors opined that she requires medication and treatment with sophisticated equipments. Since the mother was a minor, as per the orders of the Junior Civil Judge Court at Dubbak, in Dis.No.96/2025, dtd. 25/1/2025, the District Child Protection Officer, Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA), Balasadanam, Murshadgadda, Siddipet Town and District, has taken custody of the child. According to the petitioner, the child is not getting proper medication and treatment and he is therefore requesting the custody of the female child to be given to him to take care of the child till her mother, i.e., daughter of the petitioner attains the age of majority. The writ petition was filed on 18/2/2025. The petitioner claims to be having affection towards the un-named Baby Girl and had sought his custody. The petitioner's wife i.e., respondent No.5 was in police custody while the minor daughter was under the custody of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and stated that the respondent No.4 was a minor and a victim as per record in Crime No.195/2024, under Ss. 366a, 376(3), 420, 120b, 201, 338 r/w 109 IPC and Sec.5(i)(j)(II) r/w 6 of POCSO, Sec. 19(1) r/w 21(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and 75 of Juvenile Justice Act and Ss. 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Act on the file of P.S.Miroddi. It is stated that the respondent No.5 along with RMP Doctor Mr.Appanapally Yellesham, sold the baby to a childless couple of Sangareddy District and on coming to know about the same, a crime was registered against them and both the grandmother and the RMP doctor are in jail. It is stated that the custody of the child was given to the respondent No.2 as per the directions of the Court and her health condition has been reviewed by the doctors and her health condition is now stated to be stable. It is stated that after the delivery, the biological mother and other family members were not even willing to look at the baby, leave alone look after the welfare of the baby and therefore, the baby was placed in Shishu Gruha for care and protection and the child will be given for adoption as per the Adoption Regulations, 2022. It is stated that the baby has been named as Mithakshi and that the staff of Shishu Gruha and also the doctors are monitoring all the babies in the home and that baby Mithakshi is normal and her health condition is stable. She referred to the Social Investigation Report given by the Social Worker in Form-22 to the effect that if the baby is given back to their family, there is every possibility of her being given to illegal adoption, as the mother is a minor and she does not know how to take care of the baby and financially also they are poor. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, the child cannot be given to the care of the petitioner, who is a grandfather and also to the respondents No.4 and 5.