S. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. A. MALAIMEGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the father of the minor child as against the order dated 21.11.2013 in G.W.O.P.No.3 of 2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam dismissing the application filed by him to appoint him as the guardian of the minor child, with a direction to the maternal grand-parents to hand over the custody of the said minor child to him.

(2.) The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Trial Court. Before the trial Court, it is the case of the appellant/father that he married the respondents' daughter Gomathi on 14.09.2008 as per the Hindu rites and customs and they led their matrimonial life at the house of the appellant at Thenkarai Village in Nagapattinam Taluk. The appellant's parents were also residing with them. Due to the wedlock, the respondents' daughter gave birth to a male child on 14.11.2009 and they named the child as Ranjith Kumar. After one year from the marriage, the appellant had left to abroad on account of his job. While so, on 14.04.2011, the respondents' daughter Gomathi, who was residing along with the parents of the appellant, out of anger poured kerosene and set herself on fire and despite the treatment given to her, she died on 15.04.2011. Thus, she had committed suicide. Hence, the appellant returned to India on 17.04.2011. Upon the death of the said Gomathi, a criminal case was registered as against the mother and brothers of the appellant under Section 306 IPC on the allegation of abetting the said Gomathi to commit suicide, and a charge-sheet was also filed against them in S.C.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. Pending the said criminal case, the respondents, who are the maternal grand-parents of the minor child Ranjith Kumar, took the child forcibly from the custody of the family of the appellant and inspite of the repeated demand made by the appellant to hand over the minor child into his custody, the respondents refused to hand over the custody of the minor child.

(3.) It is further case of the appellant that the respondents are eking their livelihood with meager income by maintaining sheep and they are going to various places for their livelihood and they use to stay in open space with temporary shed. On the other hand, the appellant is doing construction work and earning sufficient income and he can properly look-after his minor son Ranjith Kumar with his income by providing food, shelter and education to him. The appellant has also taken insurance policy in the name of his minor son Ranjith Kumar for the benefit of his future. The respondents are age-old persons and they have no sufficient earning. On account of their avocation of maintaining sheep, they use to go to various places and they would not stay in a particular place. So, if the minor child Ranjith Kumar is allowed to be in the custody of the respondents, it would affect the welfare and future of the minor child. Whereas the appellant is possessing an ancient ancestral house and nanja land and he is also having sufficient income to bring up the minor child and the parents of the appellant are also hale and healthy and they are also ready to take care of the minor child. Hence, the appellant, as a natural guardian, is entitled to seek the custody of the minor child Ranjith Kumar from the custody of the respondents. Thus, the appellant prayed for appointing him as guardian of his minor son Ranjith Kumar and also for a direction to the respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to him.