K. KIRAN KUMAR Vs. SWAROOPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the husband under Sec. 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity 'the Act of 1984') read with Sec. 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for brevity 'the Act of 1890') against the judgment dtd. 6/3/2021 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, C.G. in Misc. Civil Suit No.24/2020, whereby the application filed by husband under Sec. 25 of the Act of 1890 has been dismissed.

(2.) (i) Brief facts of the case are that on 24/5/2014, marriage of the appellant-husband was solemnized with the respondent-wife according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Vijaynagram, Andhra Pradhesh and out of their wedlock, Ku. Dakshata was born on 21/3/2015. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent did not take care of her child and was always careless towards the child since birth. Upon consultation with psychiatrist, the appellant came to know that respondent is suffering from schizophrenia disease and thereafter she was taken to Citizen Hospital, Hyderabad where Dr. Anita Arya conducted her treatment for a long time. The respondent and her parents had left the child with the appellant for her proper care. Thus, the daughter has been living under the protection of the appellant since the age of one year. When the appellant filed a divorce petition against the respondent before the Family Court, Durg in which proceedings respondent appeared and prayed for time to file written statement. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an application under Sec. 97 Cr.P.C. before SDM, Durg and got a warrant issued against the appellant seeking presence of her daughter.

(3.) Wife filed her written statement denying the plaint averments. She stated that after marriage, the appellant started mental harassment with her with respect to demand of dowry. It is pleaded by the respondent that at present, she is working in the office of ESIC and thus she is fully competent to take care of her child, rather appellant is very careless as also even not bothered to meet his daughter. She has further stated that the appellant is not capable to properly maintain and educate her daughter. Apart from that, it is stated by her that if the custody of her daughter is given to appellant, there would be negative impact on her. She has also stated that she is mentally and physically fit and thus capable to take care of her daughter as also to provide proper education and therefore, custody of minor child sought for by the husband may not be granted.