J VELAN Vs. G MUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under S. 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 8 of 1890 read with S. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 32 of 1956. THIS Original Petition concerns guardianship and custody of the minor girl Dhanalakshmi alias Chithra aged about 9 months on the date of the petition. She was born to the petitioner Velan and one M. Nagewari on 23-3-1987 in Madras. The petitioner/father is natural guardian for the minor. The child lost her mother due to jaundice.

(2.) THE facts placed in this have disclosed that the marriage between the parents of the minor child took place on 102-1986 in Madras, according to Hindu rites and customs. THE parents of the minor were residing at Nos. 21, Kannabiran Koil Street, Perambur, Madras-11. However, unfortunately on 15-10-1987 the mother of the child died due to jaundice. Even before the petitioner could complete all the ceremonies for his wife, respondents 2 and 3 mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner, without the permission or consent of the petitioner stealthily removed the child on 16-10-1987, when the petitioner was away. It is seen from the records that the demise of the mother of the child seems to have brought about problems over the guardianship and custody of the minor child. THE petitioner approached respondents 1 to. 3 and demanded them, to return the custody of the child to the petitioner, but the respondents refused to hand over the custody of the child. THEreafter, on enquiry the petitioner came to know that the child was left by respondents 1 and 2 grand-parents, with the third respondent. THE third respondent is the sister of the petitioner's wife and the 4th respondent is the rother of the petitioner's wife. Several attempts made by the petitioner through mediations also failed. So the petitioner gave a police complaint on 12-12-1987 with the police and the 4th respondent who appeared for enquiry, agreed to hand over the child on 15-12-1987, but he did not turn up to hand over the custody of the child inspite of the undertakings given by the 4th respondent. But on the other hand respondents 1 and 2 caused a notice dated 17-12-1987 to be issued to the petitioner with frivolous and imaginary allegations as if the child should be only with the custody of the third respondent. It is also stated in the petitioner that the third respondent is already having four children of her own. It appears from the records that the third respondent's husband is a record clerk in the Raj Bhavan and they are residing in Raj Bhavan Residential Quarters. In addition, it was claimed by the respondents that there was no female helper in the residence of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 reside in the village and also they are rustic. THE petitioner's child cannot be allowed to be with the family of the third respondent because the petitioner's child requires special attention and care. THE petitioner alone can give the child a better health, food, medicines, dress and education and better atmosphere and as the natural father.

(3.) P.W.I has deposed that he did not give his consent for taking away his child by the third respondent, that he is dealing in kerosene business and he has got sufficient means to look after the child and maintain the child, and that P.W. 2 is living with his, who will be able to look after the child. To a question put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, P.W.1 has answered that he still has not remarried and that he alone can take care of his child. To another question P.W.1 has stated that P.W.2 is living with him even prior to his marriage. He has further stated that he was not permitted to see the child and whenever he approached the respondents to see the child some explanations stating that the child was out of station and that some time as if the child was residing either at Raj Bhavan or at Vallur, with the result he cannot find the child anywhere. To a question specifically put by the learned counsel for the respondent whether the petitioner used to take alcohol, a categorical reply was given by P.W. 1 that he has no such habits. He has also further deposed that he is prepared to dispose of the entire jewellery given to his wife at the time of marriage and convert into cash and put in Bank deposit in the name of the minor child. Nothing was elicited by the counsel for the respondents to discredit P.W.1 's testimony about his real and genuine intention to have the custody of the child and being the guardian of his minor daughter.