The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a father seeking custody of his minor son under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, emphasizing that the paramount consideration in such matters is the welfare of the child and not merely the legal rights of the natural guardian.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan delivered the judgment on 10 April 2025 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 247 of 2023 titled Suryas Ravi Prakash Rao vs Mohithe Manohar Rao & Others.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Suryas Ravi Prakash Rao, father of the minor child Chi. Suryas Srivatsav, filed the appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. He sought custody of his son from the respondents—Mohithe Manohar Rao (maternal grandfather), Mohithe Prameela Rao (maternal grandmother), and Kalyan Kumar (maternal uncle). The appeal challenged the order dated 12.12.2022 of the Principal District Judge, Ananthapuram, which dismissed G.W.O.P. No.13 of 2020 filed by the appellant seeking custody.
The dispute stems from the death of the appellant’s wife Jyothi Manohar on 04.09.2017, which resulted in the registration of Crime No. 146 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 302, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant and his parents. The child was taken into custody by the maternal relatives, and the appellant contended he was denied access to his son and falsely implicated in a case of murder, alleging it was a suicide.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether the appellant-father should be granted custody of the minor child under Sections 9, 10, and 23 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
- Whether the trial court’s decision refusing custody to the father despite his acquittal in the criminal case was legally justified.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court upheld the decision of the lower court, reiterating that the child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration in custody disputes. Key points from the judgment include:
- The appellant was acquitted in Sessions Case No. 207 of 2018, but a criminal appeal (No. 380 of 2022) against that acquittal is pending before the High Court.
- The child was a prosecution witness and had made statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC implicating the appellant. Although the Sessions Court found the child’s testimony unreliable, the fact remains that the child deposed against the father and continues to express unwillingness to live with him.
- The respondents had ensured the child’s education and deposited ₹5,00,000 in his name. He is enrolled in an international school in Bangalore.
- The Family Court in Bangalore (G & W.C. No.101 of 2018) had also rejected the appellant’s application for visitation rights, citing the child’s unwillingness and photographs suggesting trauma.
- The Court noted, “If the ward is detached all of a sudden… it is not possible to live amicably by the respondents as well as the ward.”
Important Judicial Observations
Quoting from the trial court’s order, the Bench emphasized:
“The petitioner himself admitted that ward gave evidence in S.C.No.207 of 2018 that the petitioner (father) assaulted his wife… The incident of death of mother of the ward may be [impacting] the mind of the ward till date, hence he bluntly refused to go along with his father.”
Further, the High Court observed:
“Though the learned Sessions Court has doubted the presence of the child at the time of the incident… the fact remains that the child actually deposed under Section 161 Cr.P.C in investigation, under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate, and also as a witness… against the appellant-father.”
Relying on precedents including Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu [(2008) 9 SCC 413] and Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra [(2020) SCC OnLine SC 887], the Court held that:
“The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and even if the parent is the natural guardian, custody cannot be granted if it is not in the best interest of the child.”
Final Outcome
The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the welfare of the child would not be served by changing his custody. The custody was directed to remain with the maternal grandparents and uncle.
Case Details Summary
- Case Title: Suryas Ravi Prakash Rao vs Mohithe Manohar Rao & Others
- Case Number: C.M.A. No. 247 of 2023
- Date of Judgment: 10 April 2025
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan
- Result: Appeal dismissed; custody to remain with respondents
This ruling reinforces the consistent judicial stance that in custody matters, the child’s welfare must override all other considerations, including the statutory rights of natural guardians.
