RADHA LAXMI Vs. M V CSASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act. The controversy is between parents, who are both Hindus, about the guardianship of the person and property of their only daughter. The child was born in February 1942, had the benefit of the care and company of both father and mother till 31-5-1944 and is separated from the mother since then, as she left the husband's house on that day and renewal of association between her and her husband has not been possible so far. After the mother's departure, the child was brought up for some time by the father's mother in Bangalore and on the death of the grand-mother in December 1944, by a relation of the father, at Madras. The father married a second wife in June 1946 and the child has been living with the father from the time the second wife joined him.

(2.) The mother attempted at first to obtain custody of the child by means of an application for writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court at Madras. The application was dismissed on 5-8-46 with the observation "as respondent 2 'its father' is the lawful guardian of the infant and as it is not suggested that the child is not being properly cared for, we cannot grant the petition". Subsequently she filed the application under the Act in a Court at Bangalore for her being appointed guardian of the person and property of the minor alleging firstly that the child was not properly looked after especially because of the second wife of the father being occupied with the household work and in rearing up of her own child and secondly that the father attempted to kill the child) on 23-5-1948 by administering chloroform with the object of rendering the guardianship proceedings infructuous. Both these allegations were repudiated by the respondent who is the father of the child. The learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence and principles governing the case dismissed the application with costs. The mother has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Of the two grounds relied upon in the lower Court the one accusing the respondent of an attempt to kill the child is given up and we may add, very properly. The allegation is a very serious one and should not have been put forward without proper inquiries even though it was due to the information said to have been conveyed to appellant by others. What remains to see 'is whether the child is not properly taken care of in her present enviornments.