Telangana High Court
Mr. G. Viswanadha Naidu vs The State Of Telanganav on 12 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 20581 OF 2025 AND C.C.NO.2607 OF 2025
DATED: 12.03.2026
W.P.No. 20581 of 2025:
Between
Mr.G.Viswanadha Naidu and Another.
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Welfare,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and Three Others.
... Respondents
COMMON ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the action of respondent No.2 in passing order for placement of child under the care of a parent, guardian or fit person in Case No.MDCL2025-52054302, dated 09.07.2025, in placing the custody of a minor child Gunturu Viswanadha Dhiraj in the custody of respondent No.4 without stating any valid reasons and affording any fair opportunity to the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Section 31 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and consequently to set aside the same and further direct the respondent No.4 to handover the custody of 2 the minor child to the petitioners forthwith and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners are the grandparents of the minor child and their second daughter Mrs.G.Vani was married to respondent No.4, who was also related to the petitioners. It is submitted that their second daughter had given birth to two children namely Mukund Chowdary Palukuri and Gunturu Viswanadha Dhiraj. Smt.G.Vani died on 15.05.2021 due to post delivery complications when the second child was nine days old, and since then, the petitioners have been taking care of the child. It is submitted that respondent No.4 got married to another lady by name Narra Jagadeeswari in July, 2021 and according to the petitioners, since then the respondent No.4 has not bothered to take care of the welfare of the minor child. It is submitted that during the lifetime of Smt.Vani, Flat No.402, 4th floor, admeasuring 1310 Sq.ft., in Plot Nos.92, 93, 152(P), 159, 160, 161, 162, 163(P), 154, 165, 167, 168/1, 168/2, 169, 170 & 171, situated at Club House, NJR KLR Nagar, Road No.9, Medchal Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was purchased by way of a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.5400 of 3 2020, dated 26.06.2020, before SRO Medchal, in her name and the petitioners are residing in the said property along with the minor child. It is submitted that the petitioners have been taking help and support of their elder daughter Smt.Mekala Lavanya and were taking care of the minor child. It is submitted that respondent No.4 has hatched a plan to grab the property standing in the name of his deceased wife Mrs.Vani, and was planning to do so by taking the minor child away from them and on learning about the malicious intentions of respondent No.4, the petitioners have filed G.W.O.P., under the relevant provisions of the Guardian Act, 1956 and under Section 13 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the same was registered and numbered as G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal. It is submitted that the Family Court had directed the petitioners to issue public notice and accordingly, the petitioners have got published a notice on 06.07.2025 in the Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper and the case was posted before the Family Court on 05.08.2025. It is submitted that in the meantime, the respondent No.4, having come to know about the G.W.O.P., initially attempted to abduct the minor boy from the school of the minor child i.e., CMR School, Medchal, but when the 4 attempt was thwarted by the intervention of the school management and the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners had also lodged a police complaint dated 08.07.2025 against the respondent No.4, but the police failed to take any action. On 09.07.2025 at around 1 p.m., respondent No.4 had forcefully barged into the house of the petitioners and abducted the minor child with the help of some antisocial elements and immediately the petitioners had lodged a complaint on the same day against respondent No.4 before respondent No.3, which was registered as a crime vide FIR No.656 of 2025 for offences under Sections 329(4), 137(2), 115(2) of BNS and same is pending consideration. It is submitted that respondent No.4, immediately approached respondent No.2 and obtained the impugned order dated 09.07.2025, handing over the custody of the child to respondent No.4 without issuance of any notice to the petitioners and without any application of judicial mind. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. This Court had issued a notice to the respondent No.4 on 17.07.2025; and on 21.08.2025, this Court had directed respondent No.4 to produce the child before this Court on 22.08.2025 at 4 p.m., but the Court did not function on 5 22.08.2025. Thereafter, upon the directions of this Court, the child was produced before this Court on 01.09.2025 and this Court after observing the child directed the respondent No.4 to handover the custody of the child to his grandparents i.e., the petitioners herein in the morning hours of Wednesday i.e., on 03.09.2025 and directed the petitioners to send the boy to the same school where he was studying i.e., Sunflower Vedic School, Kandlakoya, Medchal Road and thereafter, on 08.09.2025 the child was directed to be handed over to the parent i.e., respondent No.4 and the child was to be in his custody for a period of one week i.e., till 14.09.2025 and thereafter, child was to be handed over to the grandparents on 15.09.2025 and the child was to be in their custody till 21.09.2025 and on 22.09.2025, the child was to be handed over to the custody of respondent No.4 and the child was to be in his custody till 28.09.2025, and the matter was directed to be listed on 25.09.2025 and on 25.09.2025 the order was modified partially. However, the custody of minor child was not given to the grandparents as directed by this Court by the parent i.e., child's father, i.e., respondent No.4 alleging willful disobedience of the orders of this Court, the petitioners have filed Contempt Case before this Court. On 17.10.2015, the learned counsel 6 appearing for the respondent No.4 had submitted that in spite of best efforts to take the child to the petitioners, the child was refusing to go and therefore, his custody could not be given to the petitioners. This Court had directed the respondent No.4 to produce the child before this Court on 27.10.2025. However, the child was not produced and therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 28.10.2025 at 02.15 p.m. for production of the child. But on 28.10.2025 also, the respondent No.4 did not produce the child and therefore, this Court had taken cognizance of the disobedience under the Contempt of Court and required the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from Charminar Police Station to be present in the Court and on the directions of this Court, respondent No.4 was taken into custody. He was directed to be released on his executing an undertaking that he would produce the child before this Court on the next date of hearing. However, on 29.10.2025, he was produced before the Court and it was reported that no such undertaking was given by respondent No.4. However, at 02.15 p.m., the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 tendered apology on behalf of respondent No.4 and submitted that respondent No.4 would give an undertaking to produce the child before this Court on the next date of hearing. 7 Taking the same into consideration, respondent No.4 was released from detention and the matter was directed to be listed on 31.10.2025. The child was produced before this Court on 31.10.2025 and after having conversation with the child it was learnt that the step mother of the minor child was tutoring the child not to talk to the petitioners or to go to them. Taking serious view of the same and in order to see that an amicable solution can be arrived at, this Court had referred the matter to the Legal Services Authority for mediation and the parties appeared before the mediation center. However, it is reported that the mediation has failed. Therefore, the matter has come up for hearing again.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act are applicable only in the case of a "child in need of care and protection" and referred to the definition of 'child in need of care and protection' under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice Act. He submitted that the minor child before this Court is not a "child in need of care and protection" and therefore the provisions of the said Act would not apply. Without prejudice to the same, he also submitted that the Child Welfare Committee, though did not have 8 jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by respondent No.4, has also not followed the procedure laid down under Section 31 of the said Act and therefore, such an order is not sustainable. It is further submitted that there was no dispute that the minor child was in the custody of the petitioners only since the date of death of his mother and that respondent No.4 has re-married and the petitioners fear that the child will not be taken proper care by the step mother and therefore, they have filed G.W.O.P., before the Civil Court for guardianship of the child and during the pendency of the same, respondent No.4 has high handedly abducted the child and was keeping the child in his custody. Therefore, they are seeking to set aside of the impugned order and to give the custody of the child to the grandparents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Geetanjali Dogra Vs. State and Others in CM(M) 1140/2018, dated 06.09.2019, wherein it was held that Child Welfare Committee has no power to give the custody of the child from one parent to the other or vice-versa. It was observed that it is only the Court which has the jurisdiction to decide the 9 guardianship or give visitation rights or access to the minor children.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, on the other hand, submitted that respondent No.4 is the natural father and therefore, natural guardian under Sections 4 and 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and that he has always looked after the child and had allowed the custody of the child with the grandparents only because they also have lost their daughter. It is submitted that the petitioners over a period of time have been poisoning the mind of the minor child against the step mother and in order to protect the interest of the child only, respondent No.4 has taken custody of the child through respondent No.2. He also has drawn the attention of this Court to the order of respondent No.2 which was valid for a period of six months only and since the period of six months was over, he submitted that the said order has become ineffective. He further submitted that the petitioners are the grandparents and are senior citizens and the respondent No.4 has made all efforts to comply with the directions of this Court and that the circumstances leading to few occasions when the same could not be complied with, have been explained 10 to the Court. He submitted that in spite of best efforts by the respondent No.4, the mediation has failed.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that for invoking the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, the child must come within the definition of "child in need of care and protection" and Section 2(14) defines the term "child in need of care and protection" as under:
14. "child in need of care and protection" means a child--
(i) who is found without any home or settled place of abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence; or
(ii) who is found working in contravention of labour laws for the time being in force or is found begging, or living on the street;
or
(iii) who resides with a person (whether a guardian of the child or not) and such person--
(a) has injured, exploited, abused or neglected the child or has violated any other law for the time being in force meant for the protection of child; or
(b) has threatened to kill, injure, exploit or abuse the child and there is a reasonable likelihood of the threat being carried out; or
(c) has killed, abused, neglected or exploited some other child or children and there is a reasonable likelihood of the child in question being killed, abused, exploited or neglected by that person; or 11
(iv) who is mentally ill or mentally or physically challenged or suffering from terminal or incurable disease, having no one to support or look after or having parents or guardians unfit to take care, if found so by the Board or the Committee; or
(v) who has a parent or guardian and such parent or guardian is found to be unfit or incapacitated, by the Committee or the Board, to care for and protect the safety and well-being of the child; or
(vi) who does not have parents and no one is willing to take care of, or whose parents have abandoned or surrendered him; or
(vii) who is missing or run away child, or whose parents cannot be found after making reasonable inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed; or
(viii) who has been or is being or is likely to be abused, tortured or exploited for the purpose of sexual abuse or illegal acts; or
(ix) who is found vulnerable and is likely to be inducted into drug abuse or trafficking; or
(x) who is being or is likely to be abused for unconscionable gains; or
(xi) who is victim of or affected by any armed conflict, civil unrest or natural calamity; or
(xii) who is at imminent risk of marriage before attaining the age of marriage and whose parents, family members, guardian and any other persons are likely to be responsible for solemnization of such marriage;
8. In this case, the child was in the custody of the grandparents since the date of his birth and was being looked after by them. A close scrutiny of the above definition with the 12 facts and circumstances of the case would reveal that none of the conditions mentioned Clause 2 (14) of the Act are attracted to this case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the minor child is a "child in need of care and protection" under the Act. Further, the petitioners have already filed an OP before the Civil Court for permanent custody of the child and the fact that respondent No.4 has taken custody of the child through respondent No.2 also shows that he did not have the custody of the child till the date of the impugned order. Such being the case, the CWC had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order giving the custody of the child to the respondent No.4 by taking away his custody from his grandparents, particularly during the pendency of G.W.O.P.
9. The allegations of the petitioners that respondent No.4 has not been taking care of the child, can only be proved in the trial Court and therefore, the petitioners have rightly invoked the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for the permanent custody of the child and the Court has also issued notice to respondent No.4. In such circumstances, the respondent No.4 ought to have appeared before the Court and obtained appropriate orders for taking the custody of the child 13 and instead has invoked the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and when the Act was not applicable to the child at all.
10. Further it is also noticed that Section 31 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the committee. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereunder:
(1) Any child in need of care and protection may be produced before the Committee by any of the following persons, namely :--
(i) any police officer or special juvenile police unit or a designated Child Welfare Police Officer or any officer of District Child Protection Unit or inspector appointed under any labour law for the time being in force;
(ii) any public servant;
(iii) Childline Services or any voluntary or non-governmental organization or any agency as may be recognized by the State Government;
(iv) Child Welfare Officer or probation officer;
(v) any social worker or a public spirited citizen;
(vi) by the child himself; or
(vii) any nurse, doctor or management of a nursing home, hospital or maternity home;
Provided that the child shall be produced before the Committee without any loss of time but within a period of twenty- four hours excluding the time necessary for the journey. 14
2) The State Government may make rules consistent with this Act, to provide for the manner of submitting the report to the Committee and the manner of sending and entrusting the child to children's home or fit facility or fit person, as the case may be, during the period of the inquiry.
11. The procedure prescribed as above has admittedly not been followed in this case. The respondent No.4 is not a person falling in any of the category of persons mentioned above. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 does not stand the scrutiny of law and is liable to be set aside. As held by the Coordinate bench of Court at New Delhi, it is only the trial Court which can decide the custody of a child and not the CWC. The interim directions given by this Court to give the custody of the child to the grandparents also were not complied with by respondent No.4. In fact, they were complied with only partly and that too after contempt case was filed by the writ petitioners. This Court had passed the interim orders only to see that the child is not disturbed by the dispute between the parties. However, in view of the setting aside the impugned order, the child will have to be put back into the custody of the petitioners. But in order to protect the bond between the minor child and his father, step mother and the 15 other siblings, this Court directs the petitioners to allow the respondent No.4 to visit the child as and when he wishes and also to handover the custody of the child to respondent No.4 over the weekends. However, this arrangement shall continue only till the issue of final custody is decided by the trial Court in G.W.O.P. C.C.NO.2607 OF 2025:
12. The respondent No.4 has shown reluctance in following the directions of this Court and has not followed the orders of this Court in toto. Therefore, it is in clear Contempt of Court. However, since he is the natural parent of the child, this Court takes a lenient view and warns him to be more careful in future and abide by the directions of the Court.
13. In the result:
(i) W.P.No.20581 of 2025 is allowed.
(ii) C.C.No.2607 of 2025 is closed.
(iii) No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 12.03.2026 bak 16 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.NO. 20581 OF 2025 AND C.C.NO.2607 OF 2025 Dated: 12.03.2026 bak