SANTHANALAKSHMI Vs. S MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sections 3, 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act.

(2.) The petitioner is the mother of the minor boy Karthik alias Karthigeyan aged about 8 years. The petitioner married the respondent in the year 1981 and the minor boy Karthik alias Karthigeyan was born to them on 2-1-1983. The petitioner has alleged hereunder. She the petitioner had been to her parents house in January 1986 and returned to her matrimonial house with certain new clothes and house-hold articles presented to her by her parents. But the respondent, who developed allergic to his in-laws, directed the petitioner to return all materials to her parents. This resulted in a quarrel between them and the respondent beat the petitioner, who had to return to her parents' house. The respondent a few days later, came to the petitioner's house and tried to take away the minor boy Karthik along with him but at the intervention of the neighbours, the child was retrieved to the petitioner. The child was admitted in Sri Sankara Senior Secondary School, Adyar in 1986-88. The respondent filed a Habeas Corpus petition W. P. No. 1499/86 for, the custody of the child, but the same was dismissed on 8-4-1986. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 32 of 1986 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for maintenance. The respondent, to avoid the liability of paying maintenance, made unfounded allegations, including adultery, against the petitioner. During that time, the respondent suggested for the admission of the child in Brindavari School, Attur, Chengleput District, a residential school, and also offered to take the petitioner with him. Therefore, the petitioner filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate for maintenance, was not pursued by the petitioner and she also joined the respondent. The child Karthik was admitted in Brindavan School, Attur, but the respondent made a false complaint to the police against the petitioner alleging that she threatened to poison the respondent and the child. The police also unnecessarily harassed her. The respondent filed O.P. No. 192/ 87 on the file of this Court seeking custody of the minor child. That petitioner was dismissed permitting the petitioner to bring up the child in Brindavan School. After the disposal of that petition as the respondent admitted the boy in Brindavan School as father, he informed the school authorities that he alone is entitled to the custody of the child. Therefore, during the vacation time, the respondent is taking the boy with him. The child Karthik is very much attached to his mother and he has also written letters to his friends. The petitioner is alone and her parents are living in Manamai Village in Chengal-Anna District. The petitioner being the mother is entitled to be the guardian of her minor son. As the (respondent had clandestinely removed the minor child from her custody and the welfare of the minor will be very much improved if he is placed in the custody of the mother, the petitioner has filed this petition to appoint her as the guardian of the minor and also for giving custody of the child to her from the respondent, who is a very arrogant, harsh and rigid person. Hence this petition.

(3.) The respondent has filed counter with the following contentions: The petitioner, without the knowledge and consent of the respondent, had left the matrimonial house with all the house-hold articles. When this was questioned, now a colour is given that the respondent objected for receiving the dress and other articles from her parents. Petitioner's father, who is working in Electricity Board office, is a drunkard and he is also a man of bad character. The minor boy Karthik was admitted by the respondent in a good convent in 1986 but the petitioner had deliberately taken away this child without considering the welfare of the child, to her father's house situated in a slum lacking even the basic amenities and that area also is known for selling arrack and a harbouring place of criminals, in the southern part of Madras and therefore the minor boy cannot be placed in that area where the petitioner is living. The brothers of the petitioner are uneducated and the future of the boy will be very much affected if he is placed with the petitioner. The petitioner's character also, is questionable and she is having illicit intimacy with a provision store merchant. The petitioner was even discouraging the minor boy not to continue his education as he belongs to Scheduled Caste, will be easily able to get job. Now, he is spending Rs. 20,000 per year for the education of the minor boy, and as the boy is studying in Brindavan Residential School, his tranquility will be affected if the petitioner is permitted to meet the child along with some strangers. When he is a natural guardian of the minor boy and he is spending lavishly for the education of the boy, there is no need to appoint the petitioner as the guardian of the minor boy and given custody of the child to the petitioner. If the petitioner is appointed as guardian of the minor, the future of the child will be very, much affected. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.