Bharat Anumolu vs Tracy Lynn Anumolu

This revision arises out of order dated 03.12.2019 in I.A.No.1127 of 2019 in O.P.No.96 of 2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court â€

cum â€" Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

OP.No.96 of 2014 is filed by the revision petitioner against the respondent under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody of their

minor daughter ‘Sareena Anumolu’. An application in I.A.No.1127 of 2019 was filed under Section 151 CPC by the petitioner to direct the

respondent to sign in the passport application form by incorporating their minor daughter’s address in India as the child has been living in India

continuously from August, 2009 and further to direct that the passport be mailed directly to this Court by the U.S. Department of State upon renewal

and to pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-mother filed an application in I.A.No.552 of 2014 for renewal of passport of their daughter and as

no objection was reported by the petitioner-father, the Court below allowed the application. In compliance of the said orders, the petitioner signed the

application form to the respondent across the Bench, but the respondent refused to sign on the said application form. The respondent filed another

application in IA.No.260 of 2016 for renewal of passport and the Court below passed order directing both the parties to renew the child passport but

the respondent failed to sign in the said application form and as such, it is not renewed till date.

It is further stated that the respondent submitted a passport application form before the Department of the State of Government of the United

States of America without obtaining the signature of the petitioner. The Department objected for issuance of passport without the signature of the

petitioner and an email was sent to the petitioner asking him whether he was agreeing or objecting for issuance of passport to their minor child. The

objections were sent by the petitioner since the application form did not contain his signature and further the matter was subjudice before the Court of

law. Granting injunction order in favour the petitioner against the respondent from taking the child out of Hyderabad was also taken to the notice of the

said authorities. The Court below permitted the petitioner to take the minor child to USA with certain objection but the said order was stayed by this

Court. There is threat of abduction of the child from the custody of the petitioner and therefore, renewal of passport without the consent of the

petitioner is opposed. The renewal of passport issue does not arise in view of the stay orders and the respondent cannot be permitted to take the child

out of Hyderabad. The petitioner has no objection if the application form is submitted before the concerned authority duly signed by the respondent

and himself.

The aforesaid application was opposed by the respondent-mother stating that the petition is not maintainable and devoid of merits. The petitioner has

stolen the child’s passport and allowed it to lapse without the child having a passport. On the assurance of the petitioner to streamline the business

of the petitioner, the respondent, the child and the petitioner travelled to India. After coming to India, the petitioner went back upon his assurance, has

shown his true colours, filed the present case to retain the child in India and further obtained an ex parte injunction order while living together. The

documents and jewellery pertaining to the respondent and the child’s passport were stolen by the petitioner from the joint locker. Immediately

after obtaining the said orders, the petitioner moved out of the house to stay separately and further allowed the passport to lapse. The respondent is

helpless and has no one in India and she is not aware of the legal proceedings, for which the petitioner took undue advantage. It is true that the

respondent filed two applications in I.A.No.552 of2014 and I.A.No.260 of 2016. Prior to the filing of OP, it was a family routine to take three days

holiday in USA. At least twice in a year, the child was traveling to USA along with the respondent and the petitioner used to join later at his

convenience. However, the said traveling came to a standstill and the child is deprived to see her extended family in USA. Both the parents of the

respondent are senior citizens and they cannot travel to India and it is also within the knowledge of the petitioner. Their health condition is also not

good and they are medically dependant and in fact, one of them constantly requires oxygen supplementation.

It is further stated that the petitioner did not cooperate for renewal of passport. A personal bond was also issued mentioning that the respondent

would be traveling along with the child and would bring her back as per the stipulated time by the Court. In fact, the respondent is bound by the said

condition. The petitioner played truant and has been depriving the daughter of the little bit of joy with the extended family and to celebrate Christmas

at USA. It is further stated that the US consulate does not work for Indian citizen as in the case of petitioner. The consulate requires the Court orders

as they are aware of the litigation since the family cases are going on for the last 5 ½ years and more. The respondent has signed a bond to bring

back the child after taking her abroad for six weeks. The child passport should contain the address of USA as well as India.

The Court below noted that the passport of the child reveals three addresses to be furnished viz. the bearers address in USA, bearer’s foreign

address and emergency address. The bearers address was shown as Jersey City, Indian address was shown as bearer’s foreign address and

emergency address. The Court below further noted that the passport of the child has expired. Taking into consideration the rival claims for

guardianship and custody of the child and the fact that the parties are contesting the matter seriously and matter being subjudice, the Court below

opined that renewal of passport or issuance of fresh passport or continuation of expired passport, shall be issued by the US consulate or any other

authority concerned, shall issue the same by mentioning the same addresses i.e. bearers address, bearers foreign address referred to in the expired

passport of the child (with correct foreign address). Further, the emergency address shall be that of permanent address of the petitioner and the

respondent i.e. the flat numbers of both of them shall be furnished since the child is residing in both the flats along with her father or mother, as the

case may be pursuant to the orders of this Court. The Court below further pointed out that the child being a citizen of USA, status quo shall be

maintained as far as possible regarding the mentioning of the addresses as in the expired passport and the same may be permitted to carry in case of

fresh passport or renewal as the case may be.

The Court below allowed the IA with the following directions:

a. Both the petitioner and the respondent shall appear before the U.S.A. Consulate on the appointed date for the purpose of obtaining fresh passport

or renewed passport for their minor child Sareena Anumolu;

b. The petitioner and the respondent shall also sign on all the required documents for the said purpose and they shall provide all the other required oral

information as called for by the said authorities;

c. The petitioner shall take custody of the expired passport of the child Sareena Anumolu bearingNo.447169345 from this court and the office shall

hand over the same on proper acknowledgment. A Xerox copy of the passport shall be taken by the court on the expenses of the petitioner and the

same shall be signed on each page by the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner shall also file an affidavit for taking custody of the expired

passport invariably mentioning that the passport will be handed over to the U.S.A. Consulate or the authorities concerned for renewal/fresh passport

without making any alterations, manipulations etc.,

d. The U.S. passport application shall be submitted by the petitioner and the respondent for their daughter by mentioning the bearer’s

address/permanent address in the United States as 9841 LEMA Court, New Port Richey Florida, USA 34655. The emergency address/temporary

address shall be mentioned as APT A 303/A403, Fortune Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hill, Hyderabad, Telangana, India-500034 since the child

Sareena Anumolu is residing for the last ten years approximately in the above Indian address. The petitioner’s address be mentioned as A 403,

Fortune Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hill, Hyderabad, Telangana, India-500034. The respondent’s address be mentioned as A 303, Fortune

Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hill, Hyderabad, Telangana, India-500034. The mailing address shall be mentioned as “Bharat Anumolu, H.No.12

Part View Enclave, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, India-500034. The said addresses shall be taken into consideration by the

authorities concerned subject to proof of the same as per the rules and regulations for issuing the required passport. The above addresses shall be

considered and recorded irrespective of the addresses mentioned in the passport application form.

e. Though the mailing address of the petitioner as referred to above is to be mentioned in the passport, the U.S.A. Consulate or the authorities

concerned issuing the passport a fresh or renewed pertaining to Sareena Anumolu shall dispatch the same after following the required procedure to

this court for safe custody pending disposal of this case. The address of this court for dispatch being PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-

CUM-ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD-500002, TELANGANA STATE, INDIA.

f. The entire expenditure for the above purpose shall be borne by the petitioner only.

g. Nothing mentioned in this order shall effect the rights and contentions of the petitioner and the respondent as the case may be. The order passed in

this application is limited to obtain a fresh or renewed passport to the child Sareena Anumolu and the mentioning of the addresses under various heads

can also be agitated in the trial of the case. The entire order herein is passed without prejudice to the rights and contention of both the parties in this

case.

Mr. L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. Deepak Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the child is residing

in India since 2009. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent has property in USA to claim permanent address of the child in USA. The address given

by the respondent of USA is the address of child’s maternal grandparents and the same cannot be used as the permanent address the child. If the

child’s permanent address is shown as USA, it will amount to making a false statement and it may attract criminal offence in USA. The petitioner

and the respondent are living with the child in Hyderabad since 2009 in the house owned by the petitioner and the same is the permanent address of

the child.

On the other hand, Mr. D. Devender Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the child is American citizen. Her previous address is

shown as that of USA and the same address is to be shown in the passport renewal application. The petitioner is trying to detain the child in

Hyderabad by showing her address as Hyderabad. The said action would obviously affect the prospects of the child and lead to complications.

On enquiry from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, it is informed to this Court that the

OP.No.96 of 2014 is coming for evidence. It is apparent that both the petitioner and the respondent have apprehension about the future permanent

residence of the child. If the address of the child in the passport is shown as India, the respondent feels that it may give some advantage to the

petitioner and it will be difficult for her to initiate or pursue litigation in USA. The same appears to be the case of the petitioner, if the address of the

child in the passport is shown as USA.

Having given earnest consideration to the rival submissions of the both the counsel, this Court is of the view that permanent guardianship/custody

rights over the child be decided by the Family Court expeditiously instead of making some temporary arrangement. If interim direction is given to

include the Indian address or American address, as the case may be, as permanent address of the child in the renewal form, there may be possibility

of change of address, if main OP is decided in favour of a parent whose address is not shown in the renewal form. Instead of allowing such

eventuality to happen, it is always advisable to avoid such a situation not only in the interest of the parties but also in the welfare of the child, which is

of paramount consideration for granting guardianship/custody rights.

This Court takes judicial notice of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation and the prevailing travel restrictions across the world. Neither the

petitioner nor the respondent stated before this Court that any emergency travel is required for the child to visit USA. Moreover, on health point of

view, it is also not advisable for the child to travel to USA. It cannot be disputed that final orders passed by the Family Court deciding the

guardianship/custody rights would resolve the controversy once for all. The address of the parent, in whose favour the guardianship/custody rights are

decided, will naturally be the address of the child in the passport.

In view of the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the following observations by modifying the impugned order passed by the Court

below:

a. The Family Court shall dispose of the OP as early as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

b. The Court below while deciding the main OP shall also consider the issue of child’s permanent address, which is to be mentioned in the

passport/renewal form and if necessary, separate issue be framed in that regard.

c. The trial of the OP shall be conducted through video conference without insisting upon the presence of the parties, if necessary, by appointing an

Advocate Commissioner and by fixing the schedule of trial and by directing both the parties to exchange list of witnesses in advance to be examined

on a particular date as per the schedule.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.