Family Court's Custody Order Based On Child Interaction That Never Took Place 'Unsustainable': Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has set aside an interim custody order passed by a Family Court after finding that it was based on observations purportedly made during a personal interaction with the minor child, even though no such interaction had actually taken place. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 107]

Holding that findings regarding a child's wishes, preference and demeanour cannot be founded on an event that never occurred, the Court remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration. It, however, directed that interim custody of the child would continue with the father until a fresh decision is taken.

Allowing the revision petition, Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy observed:

"The learned Trial Court proceeded to record findings regarding the wishes, preference, demeanour and emotional responses of the minor child on the basis of a personal interaction which admittedly never took place. The defect is not a mere irregularity but goes to the very root of the decision-making process... Consequently, the Impugned Order suffers from patent illegality, manifest impropriety and material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

The Court further observed:

"Whenever a Court records that it personally interacted with a child and thereafter proceeds to record impressions concerning the child's wishes, emotional responses or preferences, such observations ordinarily carry considerable weight in the ultimate adjudication. It is therefore imperative that such observations are founded upon an interaction which actually took place."

The case arose out of a custody dispute between the parents of an 11-year-old child. The father had filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the child. During the pendency of those proceedings, the Family Court granted him interim custody and gave the mother visitation rights. While doing so, the Family Court recorded that it had personally interacted with the child and noted his wishes, emotional responses, body language and preference to stay with the father.

Challenging the order, the mother contended that no such interaction had ever taken place. She relied on the Family Court docket, which did not record either the child's presence before the Court or any interaction with him. It was argued that the alleged interaction formed the very basis of the order granting interim custody and that the entire decision-making process stood vitiated.

The father opposed the revision petition and argued that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 was limited. He also submitted that the child was now residing with him in Hyderabad and had settled into his school and environment. During the hearing, however, upon instructions, the father's counsel fairly admitted that no interaction had in fact taken place between the Family Court and the child. It was explained that the Trial Court had interacted with children in several other matters on the same day and that the observations might have been inadvertently incorporated into the impugned order.

Accepting the petitioner's contention, the High Court held that while a court deciding custody disputes is entitled to ascertain the wishes of a child, such findings necessarily presuppose that the interaction had actually taken place.

"A judicial determination derives legitimacy not merely from the conclusion ultimately reached but also from the process through which such conclusion is arrived at," the Court observed. It held that findings attributed to an interaction that admittedly never occurred could not furnish a valid basis for exercise of judicial discretion.

The Court further observed that the defect was not a mere clerical error or procedural irregularity. Since the Family Court had relied upon the child's purported wishes and preference while granting interim custody, the absence of the interaction struck at the very foundation of the order. The Court also reminded subordinate courts that accuracy of judicial records is integral to the administration of justice and that greater care must be exercised while recording proceedings, particularly in child custody matters.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Family Court's order and restored the interim custody application for fresh consideration. It directed the Family Court to decide the application afresh within two weeks. The Court also directed that if the Trial Court considers it necessary to ascertain the wishes of the child, it shall personally interact with him and appropriately record the interaction.

Pending fresh consideration, the Court directed that interim custody of the child would continue with the father. It modified the visitation arrangement by directing the father to bring the child to Nizamabad every Saturday at 11 a.m., where the mother would be entitled to spend time with him until 5 p.m. on the same day. The existing arrangement for telephonic and video interaction was also directed to continue.

Case Title: X v. Y

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 1064 of 2026

Appearance: Sri M. Ramakanth for the petitioner; Sri Bommera Rahul Kumar for the respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 107