IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1433 of 2008 Between: Priti Anand ..Petitioner AND Sagar Dhara .. Respondent ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 01-04-2008 by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.831 of 2007 in O.P.No.893 of 2007, directing the revision petitioner herein to restore custody of the child to the respondent herein immediately. The Family Court noted the presence of both parties while passing the impugned order and further directed the petition to be called on 2-4-2008. The mother/revision petitioner was aggrieved by the said order and filed this revision to reverse the impugned order contending that the child aged 4 years should be in the custody of the mother even according to Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the father did not make out any case or justification for having the custody of the child. The respondent in fact frequently travels abroad in connection with his job and would not be in a position to take care of the minor girl and pay any adequate attention to her needs. The revision petitioner further referred to O.P.No.260 of 2008 filed by her for declaration about her guardianship of her child and the non-speaking order without any fair opportunity of hearing to the revision petitioner was criticized to be arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the revision petitioner desired the impugned order to be reversed. An interim stay of the impugned order was granted in C.R.P.M.P.No.1869 of 2008 on 02-04-2008 and on 4-4-2008, the learned Judge, while directing the revision petitioner not to move the child from the jurisdiction of Hyderabad without any prior permission from the Court, gave visiting rights to the father on 5th and 6th of April 2008. Again by an order dated 19-04-2008, this Court passed the order with reference to the custody of the child during summer vacation giving child custody to the father in two spells from 19-04-2008 to 24-04-2008 again from 30-05-2008 to 08-06-2008. Heard Smt. Padma Sharanappa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent. In O.P.No.893 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, filed by the respondent herein for appointing him as the guardian of the minor daughter Harshini, I.A.No.831 of 2007 was filed by him under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an injunction restraining the revision petitioner herein from taking away the child from his custody pending disposal of the main petition. He claimed that the child was brought back by him from Chennai to Hyderabad from the custody of the respondent, while the revision petitioner claimed that the respondent was guilty of suppression of various events described by her in the counter and desired that the interim order passed by the Court in this regard may be vacated. The interim order in I.A.No.831 of 2007, dated 23-02-2008 was directing the Principal of the High School where the minor child was studying not to issue any Transfer Certificate to her. While so, the Family Court passed the impugned order on 01-04-2008 recording the presence of both parties and directing the revision petitioner to restore custody of the child to the respondent immediately without recording any reasons for such an order. It directed the petition to be called on 2-4-2008 obviously showing that the said I.A.No.831 of 2007 is still kept pending. Due to the order of interim stay granted on 02-04-2008, admittedly the minor child continued to be in the custody of the mother and as any judicial order should be supported by reasons for passing the same and as the impugned order is unsupported by any reasons, the same has to be set aside and the matter has to be permitted to be decided on merits by the trial Court. If there is any request from the respondent for any permission to visit the minor child in the meanwhile, the same can be considered by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law before final orders are passed in I.A.No.831 of 2007 or in the main O.P.No.893 of 2007. The impugned order has to be accordingly set aside. Therefore, the docket order dated 01-04-2008 in I.A.No.831 of 2007 in O.P.No.893 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, directing the respondent therein to restore custody of the child to the petitioner therein immediately is set aside and the said I.A.No.831 of 2007 in O.P.No.893 of 2007 shall be determined in accordance with law by the Family Court, Hyderabad on merits after every reasonable opportunity to both parties as expeditiously as possible and any request by the petitioner in O.P.No.893 of 2007 in respect of any visiting rights on any day or for any period shall be determined by the said Court in accordance with law during the pendency of I.A.No.831 of 2007 and O.P.No.893 of 2007. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-08-2010 Ksn