Ayyanar Nadar vs Subramania Nadar and another

Anantanarayanan, C.J.—The only ground on which the admission of this appeal is sought to be pressed is that, in confirming the order of the

learned District Judge, that the personal guardian of the minor girl should be the maternal grandmother and not the father, Venkatadri, J., has

contravened the principle enunciated by the Bench of Seshagirl Aiyar and Napier, JJ., in Andiappa Pillai v. Nallendra Pillai 28 M.L.J. 442. We are

quite unable to accept this argument as valid. Segregating entirely, for a moment, the undeniable fact that, since this early Bench decision, the Hindu

Law Ins progressed a great deal, with regard to the variety of circumstances which might influence such concepts as the legal cruelty of husband

towards a wife, or the moral fitness or unfitness for guardianship of a minor, even on the narrow issue, we are unable to hold that the principle of

this decision has been contravened. All that the learned Judges stated was that the Legislature had recognised the right of guardianship of the father

as a preferential right, and that the Court must be satisfied that it is In the interest of the miner, to exclude the father from guardianship and to

appoint some one else, before it proceeds to do so. As, on the facts of that ease, all that had happened was that the father had taken a second

wife, after the lifetime of the first wife to whom he was apparently not very kind during the subsistence of the marriage, the learned Judges were of

the view that these facts need not disentitle the father to the guardianship of his child. The present is a very different ease, different on the facts, and

different even in the principles that are involved. The learned District Judge, in his order, went into this matter at some length, and came to the

conclusion that the father and the mother of the present minor were upon terms of greatly strained relationship, because the father had been openly

keeping as his concubine, one Annathai, who was staying in the house. Actually, what happened after the death of the mother of the minor was,

that the father married the woman Annathai as his second wife, apparently after an illicit intimacy that had lasted for quite some time. In addition to

this, the minor herself was very unwilling to proceed to live in that home, and expressed a definite wish to be under the guardianship of her maternal

grandmother. No doubt, the minor was barely in her teens, when she expressed this opinion before the learned District Judge, but we do not think

that for that reason alone, her view should be discountenanced, and treated as of no significance. On the contrary, it has every apparent

justification; the interests of the, minor are paramount in such cases, and it is unrealistic to assume that the minor will not be subjected to the

constant influence of Annathai, who was she mistress of the father even during the lifetime of the mother of the minor, and whose very residence in

the house and illicit relationship, had darkened the life of the mother of the minor and adversely affected her happiness. It appears that, on the facts

of the present case, the learned District Judge had every reason for making the direction as to the personal guardianship of the minor, which he

actually did. It follows that the learned Judge, Venkatadri, J., has rightly upheld the direction of the learned District Judge, and there has been no

contravention of any principle laid down by this Court in any earlier precedent.

The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.