LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-192

SAVITHRAMMA Vs. GANGARAJU

Decided On November 27, 2015
SAVITHRAMMA Appellant
V/S
Gangaraju Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY judgment dated 08.04.2013, an application under Section 10 of the Guardian and Ward Act filed by the appellant in G & W.C. No. 5/2012 came to be dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chickballapur. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, this appeal is preferred by the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant is the mother and the respondent is the father of a minor daughter aged about 5 1/2 years. It is the case of the appellant that she had admitted the child in UKG in S.M.E. Higher Primary School, Dibburhalli. The respondent is the driver working in KSRTC. He neglected the appellant and her minor daughter without any lawful excuse. She filed a petition for maintenance and thereby maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs. 1,500/ - per month to the appellant and her daughter. On 29.09.2011, the respondent kidnapped the child from the school. A complaint came to be lodged by the appellant to Dibburhalli police station before whom the respondent gave an undertaking to hand over the custody of the child to the appellant. But he failed to hand over the custody as per the undertaking given by him to the police. As such, she filed an application under Section 10 of the Guardian and Ward Act, for the custody of the minor child form the custody of the respondent/her husband.

(3.) THE application came up for consideration before the District Judge, Chickballapur, before whom the appellant was examined as PW. 1, apart from three other witness as PWs. 2 to 4. Exs. P1 to P8 were marked. The respondent was examined as RW. 1 apart from two other witnesses as RWs. 2 and 3. Exs. R1 to R7 were marked. The learned District Judge upon hearing the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on appreciation of evidence has held that the appellant is not entitled for custody of the child which resulted in the dismissal of the application filed by the appellant by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the court below.