G VISHNUDEVENDRAMMA Vs. G PADMAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Honourable Sri Justice Vilas v. Afzulpurkar F.C.A.No.330 of 2009: This appeal is filed by THE respondents 1/grandmoTHEr and respondent No.3/minor against decree in O.P.No.823 of 2008 on THE file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

(2.) PARTIES hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. O.P.No.823 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner/mother of minor seeking custody of her son from respondent No.1/ the mother of the petitioner and maternal grandmother of the minor. The sister of the petitioner was also impleaded as respondent No.2 as she is also said to be staying with mother-respondent No.1. The minor child-respondent No.3 was born to the petitioner on 30th August, 1994 and was aged about 14 years on the date of filing of the said O.P. and is now aged about 16 years. The petitioner filed O.P.No.823 of 2008 seeking permanent custody of the minor, in the following circumstances as alleged in the petition. The petitioner claims that she was married to one Narayana Reddy on 5-12-1993 and after the petitioner left the company of her husband, she came to her mother's house in July, 1994 for the purpose of delivery. On 30-8-1994, minor was born. The petitioner had filed an application in O.P.No.671 of 2001 before the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, for divorce from her 1st husband which was allowed on 27-8-2003. Thus the petitioner continued to stay in the house of the 1st respondent along with her son. She further alleged that she was married to one Mr. Vipul Patel on 19-6-2007 and after the said marriage, she had been residing in her husband's house at N.T.R. Nagar while the minor continued to reside with his grandmother/1st respondent. Petitioner alleged that she has been requesting the 1st respondent to give custody of the minor as petitioner was capable of looking after his welfare better than the 1st respondent; keeping in view the old age and ailment of the 1st respondent. She however alleged that the 1st respondent bluntly refused custody with ill-motive and malafide intention and also refused visiting rights to petitioner. Petitioner also alleged that her younger sister respondent No.2 is also not allowing the her to see her minor child. It is alleged that the petitioner ultimately gave a legal notice under Ex.P.1 dated 12-6-2008 seeking custody of minor child. But, the 1st respondent refused by giving a reply notice under Ex.P.2 dated 21-6-2008 and therefore, the petitioner filed the present O.P. in July, 2008. 1st respondent filed a counter admitting the petitioner's allegations with regard to 1st marriage, birth of the child, divorce and that the petitioner was staying at the house of the 1st respondent along with her son. The 1st respondent also alleges that she being the natural mother of the petitioner, gave moral protection and allowed petitioner to stay in her house. But the allegation that the petitioner is interested in the welfare of the minor child was denied. She also alleged that she was not aware of the remarriage of the petitioner with Vipul Patel and the rest of the allegations were denied by asserting that the minor is studying in an appropriate school for which the 1st respondent is paying the necessary charges and taking utmost care of the minor child by providing food, shelter and good education including giving him medical assistance by consulting doctors through 2nd respondent-her younger daughter. She also alleged that petitioner was mentally disturbed during the failure of her 1st marriage and even today, she is not able to take the proper care of the child as the petitioner has to attend the clinic and come to the house at late hours. The allegation of old age and health of the 1st respondent was denied. It was also denied that she ever refused petitioner's visitation or did not allow the minor child to go to the petitioner. She also asserts that minor child has been reared up by her, being his maternal grandmother, since the date of his birth and that no amount was spent by the petitioner towards his maintenance besides education fee of the child except few times and that the petitioner never made any attempt to know the progress of the child either while growing up nor from the doctors regarding his health and did not ever celebrate the birthdays of the child. She asserts that she has, with the help of 2nd respondent, admitted the child in the best school and providing good education by paying fees and other charges and it is the minor child who is reluctant to go to the petitioner on account of bad impulse created on his mind by the 2nd marriage of the petitioner. She therefore asserts that custody of the child with her would be more secured.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner herein, natural mother of the child is entitled to visit her minor child twice in a week on every Sunday and Thursday between 4.00 pm., and 6.00 p.m., commencing from 18-4-2010. The petitioner shall visit the minor child on Sunday at Saibaba Temple, Dilsukhnagar and Thursday at Astalakshmi Temple, Kothapet, L.B.Nagar pending further orders."