K VENKAT REDDY Vs. CHINNAPAREDDY VISWANADHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are filed against the common order dated 2. 4. 2008 passed by the learned l-Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad allowing OP No. 309 of 2006 and dismissing op No. 89 of 2006. Both these appeals relate to custody of minor child C. Sainath reddy who is now aged about 6 years (born on 17. 9. 2002 ). His grand parents are appellants 1 and 2 in both the appeals and the appellants 3 and 4 in CMA No. 396 of 2008 are their daughters. The natural father of the minor child is respondent in CMA no. 396 of 2008 and respondent No. 1 in cma No. 410 of 2008 and respondent No. 2 in CMA No. 410 of 2008 is the father of the respondent No. 1. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE dispute before the court below and in these appeals relating to the custody of the minor child, is between his maternal grand parents and his natural father. The mother of the minor child Smt. Rajani committed suicide on 1. 12. 2004 when the child was about 21/2 years old, whereupon the contest for custody of the child among the said two parties commenced. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as "the appellants 1 and 2" and "the respondent" as arrayed in CMA No. 396 of 2008.

(3.) THE brief facts leading to filing of OPs by either side are set out hereunder, the respondent who has qualifications of M. Com. , M. Phil, P. hd. was working as lecturer in S. S. N. Engineering College, ongole. In the same college, one Rajani, the daughter of the appellants 1 and 2 who was a graduate in Engineer (B. Tech.) was working as a lecturer. The respondent and the said Rajani fell in love and got married on 26. 10. 2001. They were blessed with a son C. Sainatha Reddy on 17. 9. 2002 and by then, the respondent as well as his wife rajani who were working as lecturers in annamacharya Engineering College, rajampet. It is alleged in the OP No. 309 of 1996 (sic. 2006) filed by the respondent that one week prior to 1. 12. 2004 his wife Rajani went to Hyderabad for the purpose of attending the ceremony of Gruhapravesam of her sister-in-law, the appellant No. 3 and it appears that there was a quarrel between rajani and the appellants 3 and 4 and Rajani was humiliated. She thereafter returned to rajampet and was having considerable mental stress and ultimately on 1. 12. 2004 she committed suicide in the absence of the respondent at Rajampet. The appellants 1 and 2 were examined by the Mandal revenue Officer, Rajampet at the time of inquest over the dead body of Rajani. It is further alleged that after the cremation, the appellants 1 and 2 demanded for return of gold jewelery, house hold articles and sarees which were returned to them by the respondent. It is also alleged that at the time of returning the clothes, a letter was found in the almirah of Rajani which is in the nature of a suicide note, written by her that she was humiliated and ill-treated when she attended Gruhapravesham of appellant no. 3. After that, there was a change in the attitude of the appellants. It is further alleged that in January, 2005 the appellant No. 1 came to Rajampet where the respondent was working and demanded the custody of child. At that time it was mutually agreed that the respondent shall deposit a sum of rs. 3. 00 lakhs in the name of minor child, out of which Rs. 2. 40 lakhs has to be contributed by the respondent and the remaining amount of Rs. 60,000/- to be contributed by the appellant No. 1. It is alleged that a document was written to that effect including the arrangement as to the custody of the minor child and it was kept with one sivarami Reddy who was working as professor in Annamacharya Institute of technology and Science, Rajampet. It is further alleged that while so in March, 2005 the appellant No. 1 at the instigation of other appellants came to Tirupathi and again raised a dispute relating to the custody of the minor child and with the influence of police, they obtained a document from him forcibly as if the respondent agreed to part with the custody of the child and the child was taken away from the custody of the respondent. After a month, the respondent went to hyderabad and collected the child from the appellants 1 and 3. . It is also alleged that the respondent got married second time on 4. 11. 2005. He and his second wife intended to look after the minor child and send him to school. The appellants who were residing at nizamabad are alleged to have visited tirupati and demanded the custody of the child and when the respondent refused to handover the child to them, it is alleged they approached the police at Tirupati and by influencing and by force took away the minor child from the custody of the respondent and since then the appellants have been holding the custody of the minor child. It is in these circumstances the respondent approached the Additional District judge at Madanapalle by filing OP No. 219 of 2005 on 16. 11. 2005 seeking a direction against the appellants to return the custody of the minor child to him, apart from other reliefs by alleging that he being a natural father, is entitled to custody of the child.