YELUGURI ANDALU Vs. MARAGONI SANDEEP GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision is filed aggrieved by the order dtd. 25/3/2022 in I.A.No. 291 of 2021 in G.W.O.P.No. 55 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

(2.) The O.P. was filed by the grandmother seeking custody of her granddaughter who is residing with her father. While the said Guardian O.P. is pending, an Application is filed under Sec. 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act (for short, 'the Act') for granting visitation rights to the grandmother to visit the child once in a week i.e. on Sunday from 09.00 a.m. to 09.00 p.m. The said Application was dismissed vide order impugned observing that 'the Court heard the minor child in view of Sec. 17(2) and (3) of the Act. The minor child stated to the Court that her grandparents are saying bad about her father, that she has no willingness to live with the grandparents and that she has no objection for ordering visiting rights at the house of her father. The grandmother did not clearly mention in the affidavit as to where the minor granddaughter is studying and where it is practicable to meet her maternal granddaughter. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and all contentions of both sides the Court is of the considered opinion that visiting rights cannot be granted as prayed for.' Assailing the same, the present Revision is filed.

(3.) Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the grandmother, who is the petitioner in O.P. submits that petitioner is mother-in-law of the respondent and marriage of the respondent and the petitioner's daughter was solemnised on 5/5/2011 as per the customs and traditions. It is submitted that before the marriage, the respondent informed her that he completed B.Tech., MBA in London and has been working as a private employee in IBM, Bengaluru and getting handsome amount of salary and further informed that he is the only son of his parents and having more movable and immovable properties. Believing the same, by giving dowry and other articles, the petitioner performed the marriage of her daughter, after sometime, the respondent started harassing the daughter physically and mentally. Several times, they tried to pacify the same. Learned counsel submits that in the month of November, 2012, the petitioner came to know that her daughter conceived, even thereafter, the respondent did not take care of her and neglected her and being a mother, she took care of her health till her delivery on 17/6/2013 and her daughter was blessed with a female child who is named as Shreshta and is now aged about eight years. It is submitted that not able to bear the harassment, at her in-laws house at Nalgonda Town, on 27/9/2013, the petitioner's daughter attempted to commit suicide by taking Lyzol, thereafter, she was shifted to Suraksha Hospital, Nalgonda and after the treatment, she was discharged from the hospital. When she went to the in-laws house of her daughter, the petitioner has observed the worst situation of her daughter and the petitioner questioned the respondent and his family members with regard to the harassment and all of them agreed their mistakes and promised that they will not harass the daughter of the petitioner in future. The respondent also blamed the petitioner stating that her daughter is having health problems and he never led happy married life with her daughter. The daughter passed away on 15/3/2020 and the father of the respondent executed an agreement on Rs.100.00 non-judicial stamp paper in the presence of the witnesses in favour of his minor granddaughter agreeing to transfer agriculture lands and house plots in her favour. Thereafter, on 23/3/2020, he died due to his health problems. After his demise, the respondent totally changed his attitude, he developed grudge against the petitioner and her husband and he threatened them with dire consequences and he is not allowing to meet their granddaughter. It is submitted that the deceased was the only daughter and they have utmost love and affection towards her minor granddaughter and the respondent is intentionally keeping her away from them and he has been fostering his daughter against the petitioner by injecting aversion. The petitioner is suffering a lot assuming that the respondent may not give any space to the petitioner to meet her granddaughter in her life time. It is submitted that along with the deceased daughter, the petitioner has a son who is married and the daughter-in-law is a doctor in USA and both of them are settled abroad. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is having financial capacity to look after the welfare and education of the minor granddaughter and she has filed an Application seeking her interim custody.