NAGARATHNAMMA M L Vs. S R SURYANARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by the respondent-wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.9.1981 made by the Civil Judge, K.G.F., in G&W/3/1980 on his file allowing the petition and ordering respondent-wife to deliver the minor-children-Sham and Prith to the custody of the petitioner. The application under Sec. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act r/w Sec. 25 of the Guardian and Ward Act, 1880, was instituted' before the District Judge, Kolar-Gold-Fields by the husband S.R. Suryanarayana Rao. He averred in the petition that respondent in the petition, namely, Smt. M.L. Nagarathnamma was his legally wedded wife and their marriage took place in the month of August 1969, that after the marriage they lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock two children were born to them. The first child is a son by name Sham and he is aged 13 years. He is studying in the middle school, and the second child is a girl aged about 9 years. Misunderstandings, however, developed between the husband and the wife, and the husband was forced to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Civil Judge, Kolar, in M.C. 15/1971 and the petition was allowed. But the respondent-wife did not join him inspite of a decree. Thereafter, the wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C., before the Metropolitan Magistrate, III Court, Bangalore, and the husband is paying maintenance according to the order.

(2.) It is the case of the husband that his wife is residing in a village and the children are not getting proper education, so he sought for the custody of the children by the application made before the District Judge. He is a lecturer in the Junior College and he is interested to take proper care of the children. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of the Civil judge, K.G:F.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge observed, that though the respondent was duly served she did not appear before the Court and she was placed ex-parts. The husband was examined thereafter as P.W. 1 and he closed his side. Appreciating the evidence of the husband, the learned Civil Judge allowed the petition by his judgment and decree, as stated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent-wife has instituted the above appeal before this Court.