MALAKALA RAMU ALIAS RAMAM Vs. MAMMIDI GOPALAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in O.P.No. 46 of 1992 is the appellant before us. The said O.P.No. 46 of 1992 was filed by the respondent herein who is the father of the minor children, namely Chinna Rao and Chandrasekhar Rao seeking their custody from the appellant herein. For the purpose of convenience the parties are addressed as Petitioner and Respondent as per their array in O.P.No.46 of 1992.

(2.) Petitioner married the daughter of the respondent (appellant herein) on 27-3-1985 and they were blessed with two children Chinna Rao and Chandrasekhar Rao, aged 5 and 3 years respectively as on the date of 61ing of the O.P. The respondent, who is the father of the petitioner's wife Padmavathi, has executed a settlement deed in favour of his late daughter Padmavathi giving 50 cents of land for her life and vested remainder to the minor son Chinna Rao. While so, on 10-4-1990, Padmavathi died of bum injuries and a criminal case under Section 304-B IPC was registered against the petitioner and his mother and they were tried in Sessions Case No.204 of 1990. However after full length trial, they were acquitted. When the respondent-petitioner was in police custody, the appellant-respondent took away the property belonging to Padmavathi, including jewelery by force with the assistance of the police and also took the custody of the two minor children. Though the petitioner sought custody of the minor children as well as the property, the appellant herein refused to do so and therefore, the respondent-petitioner has filed OP.No.46 of 1992 for grant of custody of the children and also for delivery of property belonging to the minors.

(3.) In the counter filed by the appellant-respondent, the allegations made by the respondent-petitioner were denied. It is stated that the respondent-petitioner was responsible for the death of his daughter Padmavathi under mysterious circumstances and as such a criminal case was filed against the respondent-petitioner and his mother. It is pleaded that the respondent-petitioner is not entitled to seek the custody of the minors as he has no love for the two children. It is stated that the respondent-petitioner married second time. It is further stated that the character of the respondent-petitioner is suspicious as he was cruel to his wife as a result of which she died and therefore, it would not be safe to give the custody of the minor children to the respondent-petitioner. It is urged that as the respondent -petitioner was not able to maintain the minors, the appellant-respondent filed maintenance case in M.C.No3 of 1992 on the file of the III Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada seeking maintenance. Though the said Court granted maintenance, the respondent-petitioner failed to pay the maintenance amount and therefore, the appellant-respondent filed a petition for attachment of the salary of the respondent-petitioner which was ordered by the lower Court, The appellant-respondent, therefore, pleaded that all these developments would invariably show that the respondent-petitioner has no interest in the welfare of the minors and therefore, custody of the minors cannot be granted to him, as the respondent-petitioner who contracted second marriage may not evince interest in the welfare of the minors.