KHAJA RAHEEM UDDIN Vs. RAHEEM UNNISA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the husband challenging the Order and Decree dated 12.02.2017, in I.A.No.524 of 2016 in O.P.No.930 of 2016, on the file of the Court of the Judge, Additional Family Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, the trial court), whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the request of the appellant to continue his care and custody of his 23 months old boy, Khaja Areebuddin.

(2.) The appellant (husband) filed O.P.No.930 of 2016 before the trial court under Sections 7 to 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Sections 7 and 25 of the Family Court Act, 1984, for seeking permission to continue his care and custody of his 23 months old boy, Khaja Areebuddin, keeping in view of the boy's safety, security, welfare and future by restraining the respondent (wife) and her relatives and her agents not to interfere with his custody of child. In the said OP, the appellant filed I.A.No.524 of 2016 seeking the same relief. He stated that the respondent is his legally wedded wife. After the marriage, the respondent joined his company and lead happy marital life only for few days. After three months of marriage, he came to know that the respondent is having an extra-marital affair with her lover, Aamer Mohammed, who is her classmate. In spite of his specific requests to leave her extra-marital affair, the respondent did not mend her ways. Moreover, the respondent threatened him and his family members. They were blessed with a male child. He alleged that the respondent is not having any love and affection towards the child. Due to her negligence and irresponsible attitude, the boy fell down on the ground and sustained head injury. Many times, the respondent threw the boy from the cot, due to which, the boy sustained severe injuries. Thereafter, the respondent and her brothers threatened him with dire consequences. The respondent also filed a case against him and his three sisters, under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered as Crime No.262 of 2016, on the file of the Sanathnagar Police Station. The respondent has engaged contract killers to kill him and his child.

(3.) The respondent filed counter affidavit before the trial court denying the allegations of her negligent attitude towards the minor child and throwing him from the cot. She denied her extra-marital affair with her classmate. When the appellant and his sisters did not permit her to enter into the house, she filed the aforesaid criminal case. She denied the allegation that she and her brothers engaged contract killers to kill the appellant and the minor child.