G BAKTHAVATSALAM Vs. K SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS 1 and 2 are the sons of the third appellant Andalammal. Andalammal had a daughter by name, Vijaya. who was given in marriage to the respondent Srinivasan on 24.10.1988. Minor Monisha was born to Vijaya on 23.11.1997. Shortly within days after delivery, Vijaya died on 27.11.1997 Monisha is being brought up by the appellant herein. Vijaya was working in child Development Project Centre and because of her death, the child is entitled to certain monetary benefits by way of pension, gratuity etc., Apart from that, she house property also stands in the name of Monisha, Srinivasan father of Monisha had instituted proceedings in G.W.O.P.No.65 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu under Sec.25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the child.

(2.) THE learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, after enquiry, came to the conclusion that the father, being the natural guardian, in prima facie entitled to the custody of the child and accordingly ordered the appellants herein to hand over the child to the respondent herein, Srinivasan. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, the respondents in the G.W.O.P. have come forward with the instant C.M.A.

(3.) THERE is a dispute regarding the minor's property. The learned Principal District Judge has held that both the contesting parties are interested in the properties which would yield benefits to the custodian of the minor. Even in such a case, the father, being a near relative then the grandmother and maternal uncles, have knowledge over them to administer the properties. It is not as if the minor is in the custody of the appellant for a long time. After all, the child is in their custody for 2 1/2 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the father had not evinced any interest in the welfare of the minor, in that he had not even visited the minor even once after the death of his wife. It is evidence that a litigious atmosphere is prevailing between the appellants and the respondent, and therefore, the respondent might have thought that it may not be conducive to visit the child.