JACOB A. CHAKRAMAKAL Vs. ROSY J. CHAKRAMAKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of Mohan, J. holding that the petition filed by the appellant -father praying for a declaration that he is the guardian of the persons of the minors and for the restoration of the custody of the minors to the father is not maintainable.

(2.) THE petition is a continuation of a longstanding and bitter litigation between the father and the mother of the minor children. A suit O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962 was filed for judicial separation. Judicial separation was granted and certain directions were given regarding the custody of the minor children. The father filed O.P. No. 270 of 1970 for the custody of the minor children. There were three children out of the marriage, and custody of two minor children was given to the mother. The lather preferred an appeal and the wife a memorandum of objections against the judgment in so far as it was against them, the father and the mother claiming custody of the three children. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment reported in Jacob A. Chakramakkal v. Rosy J. Chakramakkal : (1972)2MLJ520, held that the father is the proper person to be the guardian and entrusted the custody o the children to him. The mother took the matter to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob : [1973]3SCR918, restored the order of the learned single Judge directing the custody of the two minor children to the mother. While disposing of the appeal, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court expressed their earnest hope that the two spouses would at least for the sake of happiness of their own off -spring, if for no other reason, forget the past and turn a new leaf in their family life, so that they can provide to their children a happy domestic home to which their children must be considered to be justly entitled. This hope which had been, expressed by several learned Judges during the course of this long and bitter litigation has not yet been realised. In fact, an appeal to the same effect by us during the hearing of the appeal would not help the parties to bury the hatchet.

(3.) AFTER the Supreme Court rendered its decision, the present petition, O.P. No. 103 of 1974 was filed by the father. The petition purports to be one under Sections 7, 8, 10, 17, 19 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Central Act VIII of 1890 hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant reliefs prayed for in the petition in paragraph 10 are as follows: