CHETHANA RAMATHEERTHA Vs. KUMAR V JAHGIRDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by a divorced mother of a female child who is eight years of age as of now, are directed against a common order dated 20-4-2002 passed on I. A. Nos. 12 and 14 filed in M. C. No. 1195 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore.

(2.) UNDER the impugned order, the learned Family Court Judge has dismissed I. A. No. 12 filed by the mother under Section 26 of the Hindu marriage Act ('the Act', for short), seeking custody of the minor child. I. A. No. 14 filed by the father of the child for a similar relief has been allowed and the custody of the minor child by name Kum. Aaruni has been directed to be handed over to the father. It is the aggrieved mother who is in appeal before us and as the order passed is common on the two applications, two appeals have been filed.

(3.) THE applications under Section 26 of the Act had come to be filed in m. C. No. 1195 of 1998 which was a proceeding under Section 13-B of the act and the marriage between the parties which had taken place on 2-6-19s6 had been dissolved by mutual consent and a decree of divorce had been granted as per order dated 17-4-1999. The parents had been appointed as guardians and custodians of their minor daughter and they were to have the custody of the child for a week alternatively. The arrangement of alternative week's custody of the child with either parent, having not been found suitable or convenient, the mother had filed i. A. No. 5, dated 12-8-1999 in the matrimonial case praying for modification of the portion of the order dated 17-4-1999 concerning the custody of the child and had sought for granting permanent custody of the child in her favour. That application of the mother having been rejected as per the order of the Family Court on 11-10-1999, the mother had preferred revision to the High Court in R. P. F. C. No. 123 of 1999, but the revision was also dismissed confirming the order on I. A. No. 5, nevertheless reserving liberty to the parties to move the Trial Court through a petition under Section 26 of the Act for any variation with regard to the custody of the child and the terms about the same as contained in the earlier order dated 17-4-1999. It is thereafter that the mother came up with I. A. No. 12 under Section 26 of the Act seeking exclusive custody of the child for herself and by filing such application on 13-12-1999 and the father also filed a similar application in LA. No. 14 on 31-1-2000. The trial Court having dismissed the application of the mother and allowed the application of the father by a common order and the custody having been permitted to the father, the mother is in appeal before us.