C.G. USHA Vs. K. RAGHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and correctness of the Judgment and award passed in G & W.C. 1/2013 dt. 29th August 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala is called in question in this Appeal. A petition u/s. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 came to be filed by the respondent-husband. According to the petition averments, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.11.207 at S.L.R. Samudaya Bhavana, Nelamangala. It is an arranged marriage. According to him, they lived together for 2 to 3 months at Marasandra village. The respondent was not interested to live in village and an attempt was made by her parents to see that the husband set up a separate house in Bangalore. According to him, he has completed only Job-oriented course which is equivalent to 12th Standard and that his wife is an Arts Graduate and has completed Beauty Parlour training. As such she was interested to open a Beauty Parlour at Bangalore. In order to avoid the harassment of the wife, the family of the petitioner decided to make a separate resident at T. Dasarahally in Bangalore. Accordingly the wife was requested to come and stay with him in Bangalore permanently, leaving his parents. In the meanwhile, she gave birth to a child who was named as Preethanya R. Ram. On the ground that the husband and wife are living separately and that the custody of the child has to be given to the husband, petition came to be filed.

(2.) No notice was served through court. At the request of the husband, the Trial Court had permitted to take out summons by way of hand summons. Based on the submission of the husband, it was considered as though the hand summons had been served on the respondent. Accordingly she was placed ex-parte and affidavit of the petitioner came to be filed in lieu of examination-in-chief and based on the same petition has been allowed. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.

(3.) It is contended by the appellant's counsel that the appellant was not notified with the case either by the court or by the respondent and that no hand summons was served. He further contends that viewed from any angle, the Trial Court,. even without application of mind and without considering the tender age of the daughter, has directed the appellant herein to handover custody of the minor daughter to the respondent. It is further contended that the reasoning of the Trial court is only in two paragraphs namely, paragraphs 18 and 19 including the discussion of the Trial Court. It is emphatically contended that no court could have allowed the petition filed to hand over the custody of the minor daughter who was aged about 3 years only when the petition was filed. According to him, the husband is not questioning the chastity of the appellant or her conduct or character and it is also not the case of the respondent that the appellant and her family members are incapable of taking care of the minor daughter and to give better "education. Therefore, he requests the court to allow the appeal.