AP High Court denies custody of 10-month-old girl to father, rules in favour of grannies

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to give custody of a 10-month-old girl child to her father, saying the petitioner failed to prove the baby's illegal detention with her grandparents, who argued that they have been looking after child since birth and that the petitioner is only trying grab financial benefits of the baby's deceased mother.

Amaravati (Andhra Pradesh): In a landmark judgement, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has refused to give custody of a 10-month-old girl child to her father after the baby's mother died due to illness. The court rejected the argument made by the petitioner that the child was in illegal detention with her grandparents.

The court considered the fact that the child is being cared for by her grandmother and grandfather since birth. The Judges said that before deciding the rights of the natural guardians, the courts must consider the welfare of the children. The father is given an opportunity to approach the civil court. It has been clarified that the father can go every Sunday to take care of the baby who is staying with his grandmother and grandfather.

The bench consisting of High Court Judges Justice U. Durga Prasada Rao and Justice BVLL Chakraborty gave this verdict regarding the custody of the 10-month-old child. A man named Gopi hailing from the Bapatla district has filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court seeking an order to the police to hand over his 10-month-old daughter who, he claimed, is in the illegal custody of his in-laws.

After hearing the arguments of both, the court dismissed the lawsuit. On October 15, 2021, the petitioner's wife K. Maunika gave birth to a baby. She passed away on April 03, 2022, due to illness. Gopi approached the High Court alleging that his in-laws had illegally detained the baby. The petitioner said that the in-laws are threatening to share the financial benefits that came after the death of his wife.

Petitioner Gopi alleged that hindrances were being created in getting dues. He tried to convince the court that he had necessary financial means to take care of the child's welfare. The petitioner is working as a civil engineer in a construction company. On their part, the grandparents said that they have taken care of the child since birth.

The in-laws of the petitioner said that he was trying to get the financial benefits after their daughter's death with malicious intent. The bench, after hearing arguments from both sides, said that the petitioner could not prove that the child was under the illegal detention of the in-laws and that they were not looking after the child's welfare.