NALLAMALA PADMAJAALIASMUPPALA PADMAJA Vs. NALLAMALA RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. W. V. S. Rajeswari, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) THE civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 18. 1. 2007, in I. A. No. 1928 of 2006 in O. P. No. 1146 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, khammam. The revision petitioner filed the said application being the mother of the minor female child by name Pranavi for temporary custody under Section 12 (1) of guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with section 151 C. P. C. The learned I Additional district Judge, Khammam, after referring the respective stands taken by the parties having formulated the point for consideration at Para 6 and further recording certain reasons after referring to certain decisions which had been relied upon, came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the application filed by the mother of the ward for interim custody of her daughter and ultimately dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP had been preferred.

(3.) MS. W. V. S. Rajeswari, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor while giving custody to be taken into consideration. The learned Counsel also pointed out to certain of the findings which had been recorded while deciding the matter and would maintain that at this age keeping the minor female child in a residential school may not be just and proper. The learned Counsel also pointed out to certain orders, which had been made in this regard and ultimately would make a request that in the facts and circumstances of the case suitable directions to be given to safeguard the interests of the minor female child. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate her submissions.