S LAXMANAN Vs. JAYANT RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the Order dated 18.4.1998 of the learned single Judge in O.P.No.729 of 1997.

(2.) THE said O.P. was filed by the respondent herein, who is the son-in-law of the appellants herein for appointing him as the guardian of his minor son Suman Arjun Rajan, aged about 5 years. THE case of the respondent is that he married one Durga, the daughter of the appellants herein on 5.2.1993 at Valliyur in Tirunelveli District. After marriage, respondent and his wife lived with his parents in Adyar. Out of the wedlock, the minor was born on 26.10.1993. Later in 1994 the respondent and his wife shifted to a flat owned by the respondents father at Besant Nagar. As there was some difference of opinion between the respondent and his wife. On the advice of the appellants herein, the respondent shifted back to his parents" residence in February, 1997. In spite of the counselling of his parents, his wife's behaviour became strange in the second week of April, 1997. On 17.4.1997, his wife was practically abnormal and her speech was incoherent. She demanded to consult a psychiatrist and later she insisted that she should be taken to Valliyur. Even though the arrangement was made, in the afternoon, she suddenly rushed to the bed room and locked the door. When the door was broke open, the respondent and his parents found that his wife had hung herself from the ceiling fan. THE respondent tried his best to revive her after untying her from the fan, but she died. THE respondent and his father immediately informed the second appellant. At the request of the second appellant, the body was taken to Valliyur on the early hours of 18.4.1997. THE appellants accusing the respondent and his parents of murdering their daughter and assaulted the respondent and his father, who suffered fracture. THE respondent also suffered bleeding injuries and was hospitalised. THE appellants accused the respondent and his parents of dowry harassment which allegations were rejected by the Sub Collector in the course of the enquiry. THE respondent and his parents left for Madras leaving behind the minor with the appellants. THEreafter, a criminal case in Crime No.494 of 1997 was registered at the Adyar Police Station against the respondent and his parents for offences under Secs.302, 201, 202 and 203 of I.P.C. THE respondent was arrested and later on released on bail.

(3.) ON the contrary, Mrs.Ramani Natarajan, on behalf of the respondent, contended that the respondent never suspected the parentage of the minor. The respondent wants to have the custody of the minor, his son, which he is entitled to legally. The mere pendency of the criminal proceeding cannot be a ground to refuse the custody of the minor to the respondent. Further, the learned single Judge has permitted the appellants to visit the minor as and when they wish to see him and as such the appellants can visit the place of the respondent and see the minor, if they are really interested.