S ANAND Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the order at Annexure 'F' dated 1.7.2011 in M.C.No. 186/2008 and the order at Annexure T dated 17.11.2011 in G & W.C.No. 100/2008 on the file of the 6th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. The respondent was married to the petitioner as per the Hindu rights and customs on 28.2.1999 at Eshwara Temple, Patalamma Temple Street, Jayanagar 3rd Block, Bangalore and out of the said wedlock, a son by name Pawan was born on 1.3.2002. The petitioner has filed M.C.No. 186/2008 against the respondent on the file of the 6th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to declare that his marriage with the respondent is null and void. The respondent filed G & W.C.No. 100/2008 under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for declaration that she is the natural guardian of the minor child Pawan and to hand over the custody of the child. The petitioner has opposed the said application by filing his statement of objections. During the pendency of the matter, the respondent filed an application seeking interim custody of the child, which was also opposed by the petitioner. After consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the court below has allowed the application by order dated 1.7.2011. Since the petitioner failed to hand over the custody of the child, the respondent again filed an application for implementation of the aforesaid order, which was also allowed by the court below by order dated 17.11.2011.

(2.) I have heard Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Prasanna Kumar P. Daroji, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the child Pawan is studying in 4th standard in a school at J.P.Nagar. The child has been living with the petitioner and is not willing to go with the respondent. If the child is compelled to go with the mother forcibly, it will affect the minor child, ft is argued that the respondent was earlier married to one M.C. Krishnamurthy and a child was born to her through her first husband. It is further contended that the respondent and her children were missing on 15.12.2007 and on 21.12.2007, her elder son called the petitioner over phone and told him that the respondent has kept them in a lock at Chittoor and requested him to rescue them. The Police have rescued them on 24.12.2007 and with effect from the said date, the children are with the petitioner. The respondent had filed M.C.No. 124/1999 before the Family Court against her first husband for divorce, which was dismissed on 28.12.2002. It is only thereafter petitioner to know that the respondent is not a divorcee. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through various documents produced by the petitioner in the Family Court. She submits that petitioner is staying with his brother, sister-in-law and the two children. The school is very close to his residence. The petitioner is financially well off and is running a driving school. Therefore, in the interest of the minor child, custody of the minor child should be given to the petitioner.