S ILLANGOVAN Vs. A KALIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by the principal District Judge, Tiruchi, dismissing the petition filed under Sec. 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is briefly as follows: the petitioner is the father of the minor child Anitha. THE mother of the child viz. , Suseela died on 9. 10. 1983 at the B. H. E. L. Hospital , tiruchi. THE respondent is the father of the deceased Suseela. After her death, the child was taken by the respondent under the guise of temporary nursing up of the baby. THE respondent who is a retired Sanitary Worker under the Railways is not having any wherewithal or means of livelihood to maintain the child. He is interested in keeping the custody of the child to make a claim on the monetary benefits due to the minor child consequent on the death of her mother. THE continuance of the child in the hands of the respondent is not congenial or healthy. THE petitioner as the natural guardian of the girl is entitled to have the custody of the child and hence the petition.

(3.) THE petitioner had already an affair with one Kamatchi and Kamatchi was insisting upon marrying him is evidenced by the letter written by her under Ex. B-4. After marrying Kamatchi. Only the petitioner has married the mother of the minor. THE conduct of the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner cannot be said to be a man of character, in view of the fact that his first wife Kamatchi had to compel him to marry her after having an affair with him and after marrying her, the petitioner has married the mother of the child. It would show that he has no love or affection to the said woman kamatchi. That apart, Ex. B-2 is a letter written by one Padma which would also show that the relationship between the said woman and the petitioner cannot be one of any moral relationship. THE respondent has also produced a third letter written by one Suguna which would also show that the petitioner was having some affair with the said writer also. From these letters addressed by three different women to the petitioner, it can be inferred that the petitioner was treating women who come across his path as his playmates without giving any regard or respect to their feelings and not a person of morality. Probably it is only because of his inability to get over these letters, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the prior conduct of the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny the custody of the minor to the petitioner who is her natural father. When we consider the character of the petitioner, there is every chance of coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not interested in the welfare of the child, but he is interested in getting the amount in deposit in the name of the child with the authori- ties viz. , B. H. E. L. Tiruchi, where the mother of the child was employed.