Telangana HC Halts Father's Custody Of Child For Bakrid
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the vacation court, stayed an interim order passed by the 1st Additional Family Court at Hyderabad that granted the father of a two-year-old boy temporary custody of the child for Bakrid.
Hyderabad: Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the vacation court, stayed an interim order passed by the 1st Additional Family Court at Hyderabad that granted the father of a two-year-old boy temporary custody of the child for Bakrid. The judge is dealing with a civil revision petition filed by the child’s mother, challenging the lower court’s order on the grounds of potential harm to the child and ongoing domestic disputes. The impugned order, dated May 2, allowed the father, to take interim custody of his minor son, on June 6, from 9 am to 5 pm for the observance of Bakrid. The mother was required to hand over the child and take him back the same day. However, the petitioner, a 32-year-old homemaker, alleged that the family court’s order was passed without proper consideration of material facts, without application of mind and contrary to the evidence on record. She claimed that the father, who never visited the child since birth, initiated the custody proceedings only as a counterblast after she filed criminal complaints and maintenance proceedings against him. These included a dowry harassment FIR registered under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with a pending maintenance case and a domestic violence complaint against both the respondent and his mother. According to the petition, the father’s sudden interest in the child was not borne out of parental concern but a retaliatory tactic meant to pressure the petitioner into compromising on the ongoing criminal and matrimonial disputes. She contended that the child was raised entirely under her care and love and was never emotionally or financially supported by the respondent. The petitioner stated she maintained the child singlehandedly without receiving any financial support from the respondent, who, according to her, abandoned the marital relationship without any justifiable reason. Despite initially hoping for reconciliation, she came to know that the respondent allegedly entered into a second marriage without her knowledge, prompting her to initiate legal proceedings. The petition accused the respondent of misrepresenting facts and suppressing material information before the family court to obtain the interim order. It contended that the family court erred in granting relief despite the respondent’s failure to submit any oral or documentary evidence to prove genuine concern or active parental participation in the child’s life. The petitioner argued that the lower court failed to evaluate the child’s best interests and relied on a superficial reading of the case without properly examining the mother’s objections and background circumstances. The judge took into account the child’s age, the absence of any prior visitation rights granted to the father, and the strained relationship between the parties. Observing that the minor may not even recognise his father due to the lack of past contact, the judge ordered the suspension of the family court’s direction pending further proceedings. The case is now scheduled for further hearing on August 11.
HC bars forum shopping in arbitration row
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice Pulla Karthik, sitting in vacation court, reaffirmed that when the seat of arbitration is not expressly designated, the court first approached under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 acquires exclusive jurisdiction over all subsequent proceedings. The panel observed that the intent behind Section 42 of the Act is to prevent conflicting rulings and forum shopping by consolidating jurisdiction in one competent forum. The Bench was adjudicating a civil revision petition filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (SCCL), challenging the jurisdiction of the commercial court at Hyderabad to entertain a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by Ama Industries Pvt. Ltd., which sought to set aside an arbitral award dated April 16, 2018. SCCL argued that Ama Industries had approached the Principal District Court in Khammam in 2016 by filing an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking an interim injunction against the encashment of a bank guarantee. The court accepted the contention that since this was the first application filed under Part I of the Act, the Khammam court alone had jurisdiction over all subsequent applications, including those under Section 34, as per Section 42 of the Act. Rejecting the argument advanced by Ama Industries that the Hyderabad court had jurisdiction simply because the arbitration proceedings and the award had taken place there, the panel emphasised that the arbitration clause in the contract did not designate Hyderabad or any other city as the seat of arbitration. On the contrary, the tender conditions clearly vested jurisdiction exclusively in the courts at Khammam. The panel further invoked the principle of “approbate and reprobate,” observing that Ama Industries, having availed interim relief from the Khammam court, could not now question that court’s jurisdiction for strategic advantage. Setting aside the docket order dated December 31, 2018, passed by the Commercial Court at Hyderabad, the panel directed Ama Industries to present its Section 34 application before the appropriate court in Khammam.
HC upholds fee for unauthorised bar hut
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a bar licensee challenging the demand for a 10 per cent additional licence fee levied by the excise department for constructing a non-contiguous hut within the licensed premises in Warangal district. The judge was dealing with the petition filed by Dolphin Restaurant and Bar, a licensee who ran a bar and restaurant at Subedari, Hanamkonda, operating under a valid licence since 2006. Counsel for the petitioner contended that a temporary hut constructed in the open area in February 2013 was solely for food service during the summer months and was not used for serving liquor. The hut was removed in June 2013. The excise department, however, booked a case citing a violation of licensing conditions and imposed a compounding fee of `1 lakh, which the petitioner paid. Thereafter, the department issued an order demanding an additional 10 per cent of the licence fee amounting to `3.8 lakh under Rule of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, citing that the hut constituted a non-contiguous enclosure. Counsel further argued that since the violation had already been compounded, further demand for additional licence fee amounted to double jeopardy. It was submitted that even if such a levy was justified, it ought to be proportionate to the four months that the hut existed for, and not for the full excise year. Rejecting the petitioner’s arguments, the court held that the construction of the hut absent any approval or documentation fell within the scope of non-contiguous usage under the rules, thereby attracting the 10 per cent surcharge. The judge observed that the petitioner, being an experienced licensee, could not claim ignorance of licensing norms and had admitted the violation in correspondence with the authorities. The court also declined to examine the petitioner’s claim that the hut was used only for food service, holding that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated in a writ petition. Noting that the licence permitted the service of liquor only in approved areas, the court concluded that the excise Department’s demand was lawful and in conformity with the statutory rules. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed
