IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No : 4604 of 2008 Between: Poreddy Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND Smt.Srivani .....RESPONDENT Order: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 26.08.2008, passed by the learned Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.358 of 2008 in O.P.No.1054 of 2008. The petitioner-husband filed O.P.No.1054 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for grant of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. The respondent-wife filed her counter to the OP. Pending the OP, the petitioner filed I.A.No.358 of 2008 under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking interim custody of minor children, namely, master Anoop and baby Sreeja, on every Saturday after school hours till Sunday evening. The respondent filed counter opposing the application contending that the petitioner never took any interest towards the children and never cared for the welfare the children. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the pleadings on either side, found that the petitioner failed to establish as to how he would be able to look after and maintain the children, if interim custody is given to him, and on the other hand, it is held that if the children continue to live with the respondent, their welfare will be more taken care of by the respondent than the petitioner. Accordingly, the trial Court through the impugned order, dated 26.08.2008, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent- wife filed counter contending that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application holding that the welfare of the minor children is of paramount importance and it would be better to continue the children with the respondent, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. While considering the application seeking interim custody of the children, the concern of the Court is mainly with regard to the welfare of the children, which is of paramount importance. In the case on hand, the trial Court after considering the rival contentions on either side held that the welfare of the minor children will be more taken care of by the respondent-wife than the petitioner-husband and this Court discerns no infirmity warranting interference with the same. Further, this Court has undertaken reconciliation proceedings in the matter, but unfortunately failed. In that view of the matter, the civil revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:29.10.2009 VGB