Telangana HC Directs Estranged Parents To Equally Care for Child

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court lamented the fight being waged by an estranged couple over the custody of their minor child. The panel declared that the couple, independent of the dissolution of their marriage, must understand that “the welfare of the child is paramount.” The panel, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, was dealing with an appeal filed by the father of a ten-year-old child, whose petition for guardianship seeking child custody was earlier rejected by the District Court at Medchal Malkajgiri. The panel, speaking through Justice Praveen Kumar, said: “Pending hearing of the appeal, no useful purpose would be served by such an interaction by the father, since the child has admittedly been living with the wife for the past 12 years and, from all the attending facts and circumstances, there is every likelihood of the child being tutored by the wife in terms of the child’s answers.” The panel, noting the “stubborn attitude of the wife” in objecting even to the suggestion of increasing the visitation rights of the father pending hearing of the appeal, observed that the wife was unwilling to have shared custody of the child, since “it would not be in the best interest of the child to be removed from the respondent’s custody and given to the appellant.” The panel observed: “It is the fundamental right of every child and parent that they are entitled to equal love and affection by spending quiet time with paternal and maternal grandparents, and by fostering bonding with both families, which may also result in the couple reuniting by leaving their differences apart.” The panel directed that “pursuant to the dissolution of their matrimonial relationship, both parents shall recognise that the welfare of the minor child is of paramount importance and that the child is entitled to receive love, affection, moral guidance and emotional security from both parents equally.” It directed that “the parents shall treat shared custody not as a matter of personal convenience or negotiation, but as a mandatory, child-centred obligation.” The bench added that “each parent shall ensure that the child enjoys regular, meaningful and unhindered parenting time with the other, without interference, bitterness or attempts to influence the child’s mind.” The panel directed that “the parents shall further share responsibilities relating to the child’s upbringing in a balanced and transparent manner, including but not limited to timely payment of school fees and educational expenses, adherence to an agreed parenting-time schedule, provision of adequate interaction with grandparents and extended family on both sides, joint decision-making on matters of health, schooling and extracurricular activities, and reasonable contributions towards gifts, celebrations and personal requirements of the child.” The panel made it clear that compliance with these duties was essential to safeguard the child’s physical, emotional and psychological well-being, and that neither parent shall allow their personal disputes to obstruct or compromise the child’s best interests in any manner.

Diet contractor loses plea on disqualification

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed two writ pleas filed by a diet contractor challenging his disqualification from a government hospital’s diet supply tender. The judge was dealing with the writ pleas filed by Madagani Sathaiah. The petitioner contended that he earlier supplied food to several gurukul schools and colleges, participated in a tender issued for supplying diet to patients and duty doctors in the Government General Hospital, Nalgonda for 2025-26 and 2026-27. He contended that he was initially shortlisted by the district diet committee, but when the hospital issued a letter on September 19 informing bidders that financial bids would be opened the next day, his name was not included. He pointed out that no reason was informed to him for excluding his name. During the hearing, the government pleader produced a copy of the district diet management committee proceedings showing that the petitioner was disqualified. The petitioner alleged that the handwritten nature of the document suggested that the reasons were created at the last minute and questioned the disqualification and the award of contract to another bidder. The hospital authorities stated that the petitioner was informed but could not be reached and that his bid was rejected because he lacked experience in government hospitals and failed to submit mandatory documents required under the tender conditions. The petitioner, while arguing that he was not given cogent reasons for his disqualification, did not provide any explanation to counter the deficiencies pointed out by the authorities. After considering the submissions and the record, the judge held that the petitioner’s disqualification was based on clear deficiencies and that no fault could be found with the authorities for awarding the contract to the respondent bidder.

Court reduces maintenance

Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court partly allowed a criminal revision and reduced the monthly maintenance payable by a husband to his wife, holding that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was meant to secure a dignified life for the wife and not to underwrite large personal and business debts incurred in her name. The judge was hearing criminal revision case filed by the husband challenging the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal–Malkajgiri, in maintenance case. The Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs 90,000 per month as maintenance to his wife along with Rs 20,000 towards legal expenses and arrears from the date of the maintenance petition. Counsel for the husband pointed out that the parties were married for about 25 years, lived for long periods in the US and later in Bengaluru, and that their two children, now aged about 25 and 23, stayed with the father. It was contended that the Family Court ignored the husband’s loan liabilities and EMIs, including a large housing loan, and failed to appreciate that the wife previously worked as a schoolteacher and ran a beauty salon, showing capacity to earn. The husband placed on record a series of civil and criminal cases and promissory notes to show that loans aggregating nearly Rs 3.5 crore were raised in wife's name from private individuals and financial institutions. The wife opposed the revision and supported the order of the Family Court. She stated that she spent 25 years in the matrimonial home, devoted herself to housework and childcare, and now lived with her parents with no independent income. She claimed that the husband’s monthly income was closer to Rs 9 lakh, that he owned multiple properties and investments, and that the maintenance awarded was necessary to maintain a lifestyle broadly comparable to what she enjoyed during the marriage. On a detailed examination of the evidence, Justice Renuka Yara noted several admissions in cross-examination, including that the husband bore household expenses throughout most of the marriage, paid for repeated foreign travel, and financially supported wife's ventures. The judge took note of the documentary record produced by the husband, including bank statements, rental agreements and case papers, showing extensive borrowing in name of the wife and multiple recovery proceedings. The judge observed that while Supreme Court precedents required courts to assess the financial capacity of both spouses and award maintenance sufficient to ensure a life of dignity, that principle cannot be stretched to make a husband liable for repayment of large loans raised by the wife for business or other purposes unrelated to basic maintenance of the family. The judge found that the Family Court concentrated only on the husband’s income and lifestyle and did not properly consider the factual matrix regarding borrowing of the wife, earning capacity and the nature of her liabilities. Holding that the monthly figure of Rs 90,000 was excessive for a single person even after factoring in reasonable living, medical and incidental expenses, the judge considered Rs 50,000 per month to be an appropriate amount to enable wife to live “a decent life on par with the petitioner” without converting the maintenance order into a vehicle for clearing business debts. Accordingly, the judge partly allowed the criminal revision case.