K. Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.Srikanth, learned counsel representing Mr. Shusheel Kumar Juloori, learned counsel for the respondent, extensively.

2. This appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the Order dated 11.12.2025 in I.A.No.726 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.55 of 2025 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. Appellant had filed a petition under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereafter, ‘the Act’) vide G.W.O.P.No.55 of 2025 seeking to appoint the appellant as guardian of his children viz., Kalyan Desiraju, born on 23.02.2020, and Karthikeya Desiraju, born on 21.10.2023.

4. Appellant is the husband and respondent is the wife. There is no dispute with regard to their marriage and that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children. They stayed in United States of America (USA) for some time. Both the children were born in USA and they are the citizens of USA. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between the appellant and respondent. Therefore, appellant/husband has filed a petition against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the said O.P. is pending. G.W.O.P.No.55 of 2025 is filed by the appellant seeking to appoint him as guardian of his children.

5. During the pendency of the said O.P., he has also filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.726 of 2025 under Section 12 of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking interim custody of the children contending that the first child’s passport had expired and he has already applied for renewal of his passport. Consulate General of the United States of America, Hyderabad, raised certain objections i.e., the facts did not meet the statutory requirements for an exception to two parent consent. Therefore, Consulate General of USA directed the appellant to provide either DS-3053 consent form from the other parent or proof of sole custody within 90 days. Though the children are with the appellant, he has filed the aforesaid Interlocutory Application seeking interim custody of the children to meet the aforesaid requirement.

6. Vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 in I.A.No.726 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.55 of 2025, learned Family Court dismissed the said application holding that the children are already in the custody of the appellant. Therefore, the question of granting interim custody of the children does not arise. Challenging the same, the appellant/husband preferred the present appeal.

7. As discussed supra, admittedly, the children are with the appellant. He has filed the aforesaid Interlocutory Application seeking interim custody of the children only for the purpose of seeking renewal of passport of his minor children. Admittedly, the passport of his first child had expired and he has submitted an application seeking renewal of the passport of his first child and the same was returned with the aforesaid objections. The said application had expired and the appellant has to submit fresh application seeking renewal of passport, as per USA laws, by complying with the following requirements:

               i) An applicant can submit an application as a single parent along with ‘No Objection Certificate’;

               ii) Other parent has to accompany the applicant along with the children; and

               iii) There should be a Court Order to the fact that the children are in the legal custody of the applicant.

8. In the present case, though the children are in the custody of the appellant, it is not a legal custody. There is no order.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the respondent is ready to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ provided that the appellant brings the children at any place i.e., Court premises or any other place. She is also ready to accompany the appellant to passport office.

10. Whereas, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, would submit that appellant is ready to produce the children before the learned Family Court.

11. Vide the impugned order, learned Family Court observed that the respondent is ready to accompany the appellant for passport renewal to the USA consulate office. Without considering the said aspects, learned Family Court dismissed the said Interlocutory Application holding that since the children are in the custody of the appellant, the question of granting interim custody does not arise.

12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 in I.A.No.726 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.55 of 2025 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, without being influenced by any of the findings made by this Court.

13. In the light of the same, we have not decided the maintainability of the present appeal.

14. Accordingly, this Family Court Appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.