A V VENKATAKRISHNAIAH Vs. S A SATHYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted by the original respondents 1 and 2 against the order dated 30-7-1976 by the District Judge, Chickmagalur in Guardian and Wards Case No. 16 of 1975 on his file allowing the petition of the father for custody of the child.

(2.) Sri S. A. Satyakumar, presented an application to the District Court under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') praying for custody of his minor son Ravishankar. He has averred in the petition that Ravishankar was born on 7-8-1972 and that his wife, the mother of the child, died after delivery and ever since the time the child was born, the child was being brought up in the house of the maternal grand parents. He has further averred that he allowed the child to remain in the house of the maternal grand parents of the child as they were shocked by the death of their daughter, his wife. Of late, differences arose between him and his father-in-law and mother-in-law and they had taken hostile attitude towards him and they were not allowing him to see his son. A pan-chayathi was held in June, 1974 in connection with the handing over of the child as also the movables belonging to the petitioner in the custody of the respondents. His parents-in-law agreed for the handing over the child in August, 1974, as soon as the child completed two years. Before instituting the petition, the petitioner demanded for the custody of the child but, his parents-in-law did not handover the child to him. According to him, the child had to be put in a good school as the child would be completing three years. He instituted the petition on 5-9-1975 before the learned District Judge praying for the custody of the child from the respondents in the petition who are his father-in-law and mother-in-law.

(3.) The petition was resisted by respondents in the petition. While admitting that the child was born on 7-8-1972 and the mother died after delivery, they contended that the welfare of the child would he better served if the child is left with them, and that was also the last wish of Vimala, their daughter, before her death. They denied that they prevented the petitioner from seeing the child or visiting their house. According to them, the petitioner nursed ill-will against them and instituted the petition with an ulterior motive to spoil the future of the boy. They denied all other allegations made by him against them. They further asserted that the words of the father were a mere make believe story and he was not really interested in the welfare of the child. When the petition came up for hearing, the petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 and spoke to the averments made in the petition. In addition, it was elicited from him that he had married again. He examined P. W. 2, B. Srinivasa Rao, on the point that the child was not sent to the petitioner's house on the occasion of the annual death ceremony of the mother. As against that, Venkatakrishnaiah, the first respondent, gave his evidence in support of the objections statement. He got marked the letter written to his wife, mother of the deceased Vimala, by her daughter, as also the letters written by the petitioner to him in connection with the bringing up of the child. He has sworn that the welfare of the child would be better served if the child were left with him. The learned District Judge, on appreciating the evidence on record, held that the father of the child was in law entitled to the custody of the child unless he was shown to be unfit for the custody of the child and in that view he ordered the custody of the child in favour of the petitioner, the father of the child, by his order dated 30-7-1976 as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have come up in appeal before this Court.