SEETHAMAHALAKSHMI ALIAS LATBA Vs. KALA SEETHAMAHALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contenders to the custody of the child the paternal grandmother and the maternal grand father have celebrated this cause. It is very unfortunate that in this family continuously for two generations there was a premature death of the manager and hence the present apathy among the members of the family disclosed in these proceedings.

(2.) The sole respondent in this appeal - one Kala Seethamahalakshmamma filed O.P.No. 149/1978 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under sec. 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 32 of 1956 and sec. 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 8 of 1890 for the custody of the minor Kala Gopala Krishna Kumar. The present appellants are the respondents therein. We shall refer the array of parties as in the O.P. The 1st respondent is the mother of minor Kala Gopala Krishna Kumar son of )ate K.V.S. Viswanadha Sarma and the petitioner in the O.P. is the mother of the said K.V.S. Viswanadha Sarma and the paternal grand mother of the minor Kala Gopala Krishna Kumar. The 2nd respondent is the 2rd husband of the 1st respondent Seethamahalakshmi alias Dabir Latha whom she married after the death of her first husband K.V.S. Viswanadha Sarma, The 3rd respondent is the father of the 1st respondent. All the three respondents are the appellants in the present appeal. In the O. P. No. 149/78 the petitioner therein claimed for the appointment of herself as a guardian for the person and the property of the minor Kala Gopala Krishna Kumar with a direction to the respondents to deliver the minor child to her. The relief with respect to the appointment of the guardian of the property was withdrawn by the petitioner as not pressed end the relief is confined to the appointment of the petitioner as guardian to the minor child. It is averred in the petition that the 1st respondent was her daughter-in-law and she does not like her daughter-in-law marrying a second time after the death of her husband. The only grand son to her only son who died is her source of affection and the boy was sent to her before the second marriage of the 1st respondent wrth the 2nd respondent was performed and subsequently on a wrong pretext that the mother was anxious to see the child the child was taken away from her and the parents of the 1st respondent were attempting to poison the mind of the young boy against the petitioner and with such ulterior motive the boy was being removed from her very often, though she took care and brought the boy to her residence and tork him to several places and relatives and ultimately when the boy was with her at Sakkarnagar, Nizamabad where the petitioner's sister was staying, on 28-6-1977 the 1st respondent's father and grand father with the authority of the 1st respondent came to her, took away the boy from her with Police aid and without heeding to her protest. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner is most interested in the welfare of the minor ; nd the welfare of the minor will never be served af er the marriage of the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent has a number of children and they cannot pay any attention to the child and she being the paternal grand mother and the minor being the only grand child of the petitioner it would be fitting for the petitioner to become the guardian of the minor. It is also stated in the petition that she is taking steps to protect the interests of the minor's estate and the minor's senior paternal grand father who is a retired Deputy Collector of Government of Andhra Pradesh is looking after the agricultural land and the estate and necessary permanent arrangement will be made for the protection of the pioperty of the minor also. The cause of action was stated to have arisen on 12-7-1974 when the father of the minor boy died and on 30-4-1977 when the 1st respondent married the 2nd respondent and hence the relief of appointing her as guardian to the minor ward.

(3.) All the three respondents in the petition filed separate counters. The 1st respondent, the mother stated that the child is with the maternal grand father (her father) who is now looking after the interests of the minor and the petitioner never took any interest either in the minor or even in her own son during his life time and the petitioner is living away even from her son and having some immoral life with one Kala Suryanarayana. The marriage of her's was arranged by her parents and the allegation regarding the custody of the minor was denied and it was stated that the petitioner came to the maternal grand father on 5-6-1971 and requsted him to keep (he boy for one or two days with her but without informing the 1st respondent or her parents she took the boy to several places and ultimately to Sakkarnagar in Nizamabad and her self and her parents were anxious about the boy and they brought back the boy from the petitioner and the conduct of the petitioner amounts to abduction of the minor and the custody of the minor was restored to the 1st respondent's father by Police at the said Sakkarnagar. She also denied that the petitioner eviaced interest in the welfare of the boy and ultimately it was stated that her parents brought the boy since the death of her husband and he is very much attached to his parents and finally it is stated that the conduct ofthe petitioner makes her unfit and unworthy of being the minor's guardian.