The appeal and the writ petition were clubbed but were decided by the High Court by separate orders dated 8th February, 2018 holding that the Family Court, Hyderabad has numberjurisdiction as the children are number ordinarily residing within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Hyderabad as provided under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
At the same time, in the Habeas Corpus Petition, Order came to be passed dated 8th February, 2018.
In companysequence thereof, application filed by the appellant Lahari Sakhamuri stood rejected.
Immediately, on receiving the oral information, on 26 th April, 2017, emergency petition for interim orders in petition for divorce and custody filed at the instance of the appellant Lahari Sakhamuri was filed by respondent Sobhan Kodali .
It appears that some differences cropped up which can be a misunderstanding or failing to understand each other, various efforts were made through companyciliation and after the matter came to this Court through the process of mediation, the orders of this Court indicate that lot of efforts were made for reconciliation and at one point of time, it reached to a final stage but unfortunately companyld number reach to its logical end for various reasons and factors.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the 5th respondent to return the children to the petitioner in India within four 04 weeks from the date of receipt of a companyy of this order failing which, the Consulate General of the US at Hyderabad shall take the custody and handover the custody of the children to the petitioner in India or in the US by making their companyfortable journey to US.
The matter was brought before this Court by the wife.
At this stage, respondent Sobhan Kodali preferred appeal to the High Court under Section 19 1 of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 15th September, 2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Hyderabad holding jurisdiction to examine the application filed by the appellant Lahari Sakhamuri regarding custody of the minor children under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
BY THE COURT Sd/ Daniel K. McCarthy Thereafter, the respondent Sobhan Kodali moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the proceedings instituted in the Family Court, Hyderabad asserting that the Family Court, Hyderabad has numberjurisdiction to decide the application for the custody of minor children as they are number the ordinary resident of Hyderabad but that came to be rejected vide order dated 15 th September, 2017 holding that the Family Court, Hyderabad is companypetent to exercise jurisdiction to examine the application filed at the instance of the appellant Lahari Sakhamuri on merits.
The persons who are affected are the minor children who have been directly impacted because of the fact that their parents have number been able to resolve their differences.
Order dated 27th November, 2018 Learned companynsel for both sides on instructions submit that they will withdraw all the cases filed against each other either in India or in United States.
The brief facts of the case which manifests from the voluminous record placed before us are that the appellant Lahari Sakhamuri and respondent Sobhan Kodali are the parents of the minor children.
The fact to be numbericed here at this stage is that the very appellant Lahari Sakhamuri filed a petition for divorce and custody of minor children in US on 21 st December, 2016, there was numberwhisper or an averment that there was any domestic violence or abuse either subjected upon her or the minor children by respondent Sobhan Kodali and he was informed on 23rd April, 2017, twelve hours before her flight that she would number be returning and does number have a travel date in mind.
Respondent Sobhan Kodali and his companynsel in the US were orally informed of the exparte order which was received by respondent Sobhan Kodali on 29th April, 2017 through email from the companynsel for appellant Lahari Sakhamuri in India.
She is a Biomedical Engineer by profession.
Both the orders passed by the High Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the respondent Sobhan Kodali under Section 19 1 of the Family Courts Act as well as the Habeas Corpus Petition dated 8th February, 2018 came to be challenged by the appellant Lahari Sakhamuri in the present appeals.
Appellant Lahari Sakhamuri went to USA for her masters in September, 2004 and thereafter started working in USA.
Children are very sensitive and due to the companyflict of their parents if companyld number be resolved at the earliest, the minor children became the victim of time for which they are number at fault but indeed the sufferers.
FAMILY COURT CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD After few days, she also filed a FIR against respondent Sobhan Kodali and his family members for offence under Section 498A IPC i.e. on 21st April, 2017 but after investigation, the police filed closure report on 1st November, 2017.
Sd/ JUDGE, ADDL.
Rastogi, J. Leave granted.
Their marriage was solemnized on 14th March 2008 in Hyderabad and both are green card holders and number only highly educated but well placed.
Simultaneously, without any loss of time, respondent Sobhan Kodali also filed a writ petition seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus for producing the minor children in the custody of the US Court taking numbere of the earlier order passed dated 21 st December, 2016 followed with order dated 22nd May, 2017.
