Jayant Rajan vs Dr. S. Lakshmanan and Another

V. Kanagaraj, J.—This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner praying to--

(a) declare the petitioner, the father of the minor Sumant Arjun Rajan as the lawful guardian of the person of the minor and

(b) grant such further reliefs as the Court deems fit and proper.

The averments of the petitioner is that the petitioner married the respondents'' daughter Shanthi Durga on 5-2-1993; that out of which the only

child Sumant Arjun Rajan was born on 26-10-1993; that his wife Shanthi Durga committed suicide on 17-4-1997; that during the days preceding

her death, her behaviour was totally abnormal and she seemed very depressed; that while so on 15-4-1997 his wife informed him that she had an

affair with her cousin Venky before her marriage to the petitioner and that he also visited her on a few occasions even after the marriage; that he

asked his wife to forget about the past, but she continued to be agitated to the extent that she did not even take care of his son Sumant Arjun

Rajan and when a blood test was done for the child to ascertain the cause of his fever, she started saying that it was only for the purpose of

ascertaining the child''s parentage the petitioner was doing the blood test; that in spite of having sent message to the second respondent, she did not

turn up but only asked the petitioner to take her to a psychiatrist; that on 17-4-1997 she went and locked herself in the bedroom and since there

was no response, his father himself broke open the door and found his wife hanging from the fan inside the bathroom attached to the bedroom.

The further averments of the petitioner are that her parents started accusing the petitioner for having committed the murder of their daughter and

even himself and his father were physically assaulted and only with the assistance of the police the petitioner and his family members were able to

flee from Valliyur and the child was left behind at Valliyur and they got admitted in the hospital and took treatment for the injuries sustained at

Madras; that a criminal case was registered in connection with the death of Shanthi Durga against the petitioner, his parents and his friend namely,

Shivakumar; that in the meantime the petitioner wrote to the respondents requesting them to hand over minor son Sumant Arjun Rajan to him,

which was refused resulting in the petitioner filing O. P. No. 729/97 before the High Court and a learned single Judge of this Court by his order

dated 18-4-1998 directed the respondents to hand over the custody of the petitioner''s minor son Sumant Arjun Rajan to the petitioner; that

aggrieved by this order the respondents filed O. S. A. No. 115/98 and the order of the learned single Judge was reversed and the petitioner was

directed to hand over the custody of his son to the respondents herein and this order of the Division Bench was subsequently confirmed by the

Hon''ble Supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 17297/98 dated 8-3-1999; that after handing over custody of his minor son Sumant Arjun Rajan with the

respondents in June, 1999 the petitioner and his family members have visited his son many a time in a common place at Tirunelveli.

The petitioner would further submit that in the criminal case registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar Range the charge sheet

was laid in the Court of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and thereafter committed to the court of Sessions and later transferred

to the Mahallr Neethimandram, Chennai for trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A IPC and under Sections. 4 and 6(2)

of the Dowry Prohibition Act and u/s 201 IPC against the petitioner as A1, his father as A2, his mother as A3 and his friend as A4 and on trial

ultimately they were acquitted by order dated 6-2-2003 opining that--

the medical evidence adduced in this case do not support the homicidal violence and the evidence is only in support of suicide as discussed in the

subsequent paragraphs,

Highlighting some of the other remarks offered by the court of Sessions in the judgment the petitioner would further submit that after acquittal he

addressed a letter dated 18-2-2003 to the first respondent requesting him to hand over his minor son Sumant Arjun Rajan. As there was no

response, a legal notice was issued dated 8-3-2003 to the first respondent for which even there was no response from the other side resulting in a

Habeas Corpus Petition in H. C. P. No. 546/2003 being filed. He received a reply to his aforementioned legal notice refusing to hand over the

custody of his minor son Sumant Arjun Rajan. Ultimately the Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed by this court on 4-8-2003 with the following

observation :

What the petitioner is seeking in effect is to have himself declared as the guardian, competent to have custody of his minor son, having regard to

the fact that the situation which prevailed at the time the Original Side Appeal was decided on 27-10-1998 no longer prevails and what was

alleged against the petitioner has since been found to be without truth, having regard to the acquittal, which counsel says, is a honourable acquittal.

......

The custody is traceable to the orders made by this Court in the O. S. A.

It is open to the petitioner to apply to the Court of first instance viz., the Original Side of this Court, which had been approached by him earlier by

filing the original petition in the year 1997 under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and to bring to the notice of the Court the change in the

circumstances and place before that Court his submission that the factors which weighed with the Court when denying him the custody of his son

can no longer be regarded as factors which can come in the way of the petitioner being given the custody of his son.

Hence this petition is filed under Sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 praying for the reliefs extracted supra.

In the counter statement filed by the respondents they, besides denying all the allegations and averments of the petitioner would also attribute

those allegations for the proof by the petitioner. Specifically stating that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts the respondents

would further submit that even though their daughter Shanthi Durga committed suicide by hanging herself in the bathroom by a saree at 2 pm on

17-4-1997, the petitioner brought the body to valliyur without even lodging a complaint with the local police. Since there were injuries all over the

body the first respondent lodged a complaint before the Valliyur police station and a case was registered against the petitioner and his parents and

another; that on postmortem the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries found on the body was confirmed to be the cause of death and the case

thereafter having been transferred to Chennai the trial was held here.

The respondents would further submit that the petitioner brought the minor boy on 18-4-1997 to Valliyur and left him with the respondents. For

four months namely, till August 1997 the petitioner did not claim custody of the minor and when the investigation of the criminal case was on, he

filed O. P. No. 729/97 mentioned supra seeking custody of the minor son and for his appointment as guardian. In the said petition he contended

that he was the natural guardian as per law and therefore, entitled to the custody of the minor. The respondents opposed the said petition on the

ground that the petitioner herein was unfit to be the guardian of the minor and to have his custody, since he was facing criminal charge of murder of

his wife and entertained a doubt about the paternity of the child. The respondents also contended that giving custody of the minor and appointing

the petitioner as the guardian for the person of the minor was not at all in the interest of the minor since the welfare of the minor was to be given

paramount consideration than the claim of the petitioner to have custody of the minor as the natural guardian. The learned single Judge, though

found that the petitioner entertained a doubt about the paternity of the child, on the finding of the criminal Court that the deceased Shanthi Durga

committed suicide, allowed the O. P. giving custody of the minor to the petitioner and further appointing him as the guardian of the person of the

minor and hence the petitioner was given custody of the child as an interim arrangement as per the orders of the learned single Judge. Aggrieved,

they preferred an appeal and the Division Bench on elaborate consideration, found that giving custody of the minor is not in the interest of the minor

and the petitioner was unfit to be the guardian of the person of the minor since he entertained the doubt about the paternity of the minor and

allowed the appeal as per its order dated 27-10-1998 by setting aside the order passed in the Original Petition further directing the petitioner to

hand over the custody of the minor boy to the respondents. Giving the other proceedings of the S. L. P. and the events followed thereafter and

extracting certain vital part of evidence of the petitioner and such other aspects in the notice, reply etc. particularly extracting the observations

made by the Division Bench in the following manner,

From the above facts, it is clear that the respondent herein had entertained a doubt with regard to the parentage of the minor and the learned

single Judge also has categorically given a finding to that effect. When that being so, we are of the opinion that it may not be proper to leave the

minor in the custody of the respondent. Till the criminal case is pending against the respondent, he may necessarily have the custody of the minor

without giving any trouble. When once it has been found that he has entertained a doubt with regard to the parentage, the devil may have its boom

at any moment.

The respondents would further state that the petitioner''s suspicion about the paternity of his own son was the reason for the Hon''ble Division

Bench to reject his request for custody of the minor. The Hon''ble Supreme Court also in consideration of the above findings of the Hon''ble

Division Bench refused to interfere with the judgment made in O. S. Appeal and therefore, just for the reason that the petitioner having acquitted of

the criminal charge would not become entitled to any right to seek custody of the minor and that there is no change of circumstance which would

entitle the petitioner to seek custody and hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the same accordingly.

During arguments the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would elaborately deal with the facts and circumstances as

projected by the petitioner giving the implications of law particularly from the acquittal judgment by the Family court in the case of murder

registered against the petitioner, his parents and friend, extracting from the evidence with due importance for the medical evidence and also the

patience of the petitioner in respect of having come to understand from the deceased herself that she had an affair with the relative boy prior to the

marriage with the petitioner and therefore, the learned senior counsel would feel that there is no point in highlighting the petitioner doubting the

paternity of the child at a stage, that there had been heat of passion that prevailed among the parties and it was also the making of the deceased

only rather than the opinion of the petitioner and therefore, would feel that so far as it has not been proved anywhere that the petitioner is not the

father of the child, since he is the natural guardian entitled to hot only the custody of the child but also that the petitioner be declared as the guardian

of the minor child and hence would pray to pass an order as it is prayed for in the above Original Petition.

On the contrary, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, extracting the relevant provisions of law concerned with the

subject, would also assert on the facts and circumstances that it was not true that the deceased wife had an affair with anyone much less with one

Venky, as it has been falsely, attributed by the petitioner herein and in fact without being able to bear with the torture meted out she became

mentally disturbed and ultimately had to die under suspicious circumstances which, according to the petitioner was a suicide and the same

according to the respondents was a murder by the petitioner joining hands with his parents and friend.

The learned senior counsel highlighted the decision of the Division Bench extracted supra regarding the petitioner''s serious doubt raised

pertaining to the paternity of the child resulting in the Division Bench authoritatively deciding that it is unsafe to hand over the child in the hands of

the petitioner, which conclusions have been confirmed by the Hon''ble Apex Court while rejecting the S. L. P. filed by the petitioner before it. The

learned senior counsel would also point out that the child was born as a premature baby because of the mental agony and physical torture that the

mother met with at the hands of the petitioner and with great difficulties affording the best medical attention the child was saved by the respondents

while the petitioner having an affair with another lady never bothered about the welfare of the child as it has been spoken about by P. W. 1 the

father of the deceased in the criminal case, prosecuting the petitioner for murder. The learned senior counsel would also support his arguments for

the dismissal of the above petition with the following judgments :

Dhanwanti Joshi Vs. Madhav Unde, wherein it is held,

It is no doubt true that orders relating to custody of children are by their very nature not final, but are interlocutory in nature and subject to

modification at any future time upon proof of change of circumstances requiring change of custody but such change in custody must be proved to

be in the paramount interests of the child ( Rosy Jacob Vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, . However, we may state that in respect of orders as to

custody already passed in favour of the appellant the doctrine of res judicata applies and the Family Court in the present proceedings cannot re-

examine the facts which were formerly adjudicated between the parties on the issue of custody or are deemed to have been adjudicated. There

must be proof of substantial change in the circumstances presenting a new case before the court. It must be established that the previous

arrangement was not conducive to the child''s welfare or that it has produced unsatisfactory results. Ormerod, L. J. pointed out in S. v. W. (1981)

11 F L 81 that

the status quo argument depends for its strength wholly and entirely on whether the status quo is satisfactory or not. The more satisfactory the

status quo, the stronger the argument for not interfering. The less satisfactory the status quo, the less one requires before deciding to change.

(2) Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Others, wherein it is held:

(15) It was vehemently argued at all stages of the case including the appeal be fore us that admittedly no citation was is sued against Girish

Chandra Ghosh afore said and as he was the person most interested in the testator''s estate besides the legatees named in the will, the case came

directly within the purview of Clause (a) of the Explanation and Illustration (ii) quoted above. Girish Chandra. Ghosh has been found by the Judge

in the first instance to have been the person most vitally interested in the estate of the testator, whether he died intestate or leaving a will, in the

events which had happened.

(3) Perumal Vs. Devarajan and Others, wherein it is held :

Even at the outset, I want to state that the view of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff has not established satisfactorily that the first

defendant or the second defendant or both were responsible for the theft is perverse and clearly against the evidence and the legal position. The

lower appellate court refused to rely on Exhibit A-3 which is a certified copy of the judgment in C. C. No. 1949 of 1965. It is true that the

evidence discussed in that judgment and the fact that the first defendant had confessed his guilt in his statement is not admissible in evidence in the

suit. But it is not correct to state that even the factum that the first and the second defendants were charged under Sections 454 and 380 I. P. C.

and they were convicted on those charges could not be admitted. The order of the Criminal Court is, in my opinion, clearly admissible to prove the

conviction of the first defendant and the second defendant and that is the only point which the plaintiff had to establish in this case. The plaintiff had

let in oral evidence apart from examining himself to prove that the transistor was in a working condition before it was stolen and it was not in a

working condition when it was returned to him. Clearly therefore he was entitled to the damages.

The view of the lower appellate court that independent of the conviction, the plaintiff should prove that the first defendant or the second defendant

had stolen the transistor is clearly not sustainable. Though the learned counsel for the respondents attempted to dispute the value of the transistor,

in view of the finding of the trial Court and the cash bill produced for the purchase of the transistor, there could be no dispute on the question of

value. In fact it does not appear from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that there was any dispute as to the value.

(4) Onkarmal and Another Vs. Banwarilal and Others, wherein it is held,

A judgment of acquittal in a criminal Court is irrelevant in a civil suit based on the same cause of action, just as a judgment of conviction cannot, in

a subsequent civil suit, be treated as evidence of facts on which the conviction is based. The Civil Court must independently of the decision of the

criminal Court investigate facts and come to its own finding.

Citing the above relevant paragraphs from the judgments cited above, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would

pray to dismiss the above petition with costs.

In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned senior counsel for both,

what could be assessed by this Court is that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased Shanthi Durga, who is the daughter of the respondents;

that their marriage was solemnized on 5-2-1993; that they begot a child namely Sumant Arjun Rajan on 26-10-1993; that the marital life between

the husband and wife was not a pleasant affair since the husband started suspecting the fidelity of his wife, as a result of which she became mentally

depressed and died on 17-4-1997, what the petitioner would call a suicide, but the respondents would term as murder. In fact at the initiation of

the respondents a murder case had been registered by the Adyar'' police against the petitioner, his parents and one of his friends and the case

having been tried by the Manila Neethimandram, Chennai it ultimately ended in acquittal of all the accused.

The further case comes to be known is that even during the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner had filed an application of this sort

claiming the custody of the child and the learned single Judge of this Court having allowed the application, the child was handed over to the custody

of the petitioner. But on appeal, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single Judge and further directed the child to be handed over

to the custody of the re spondents herein and this judgment of the Division Bench was later confirmed by the Hon''ble Apex Court also dismissing

the S. L. P. filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.

It could be further seen that after the delivery of judgment by the Mahila Neethimandram in the murder case registered against the petitioner

and others as aforementioned quoting some of the remarks and observations made on the part of the Court of Sessions, the petitioner has filed a

Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court, Madras and the said Court while dismissing the H. C. P. as per its order dated 4-8-2003 made an

observation that in the change of circumstance after the acquittal by the criminal Court, the petitioner could file a fresh O. P. again before the High

Court claiming the child and hence the above Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 3, 7 & 10 of the Guardian and

Wards Act seeking not only the custody of the child but also the declaration to the effect that he is the natural guardian of the child Sumant Arjun

Rajan.

It is relevant for consideration that for one and the same relief of seeking the custody of the child and for declaration that he is the natural

guardian of the child, the petitioner has come forward before this Court a second time, the first time though he was successful before the learned

single Judge of this Court, he lost the battle on appeal by the other side before the Division Bench and thereafter even in the S. L. P. filed before

the Hon''ble Apex Court.

However, after the Mahila Neethimandram registering an acquittal judgment in the criminal case registered against the petitioner and others in

S. C. No. 249/1999 based on the observations made by the criminal Court and the result in the sessions case by the Mahila Neethinandram, the

petitioner having issued notice seeking custody of the child had filed H. C. P. No. 546/2003 before the High Court and the said Court having

observed that--

It is open to the petitioner to apply to the Court of first instance viz., the Original Side of this Court, which had been approached by him earlier by

filing the original petition in the year 1997 under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and to bring to the notice of the Court the change in the

circumstances and place before that Court his submission that the factors which weighed with the C6urt when denying him the custody of his son

can no longer be regarded as factors which can come in the way of the petitioner being given the custody of his son.

and hence the present Original Petition under Sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The decision in the above petition rests on two aspects the first legally and the second factually. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, it is the

murder case registered against the petitioner and others for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 201

IPC and under Sections 4 and 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which the trial had been held by the Mahila Neethimandram and the case of

the petitioner is that he got an honourable acquittal and on the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the said Court thereby acquitting the accused

including the petitioner, who was the first accused, and the observations made therein the medical evidence adduced in this case did not support

the homicidal violence and was only in support of suicide etc., he claimed the custody of the child by notice and with no response from the other

side, filed the HCP and as directed by the HCP Court, has again filed the same old petition seeking the custody of the child besides seeking

declaration that he is the natural guardian of the child.

It has become incumbent on the part of this Court to assess the legal implications and impact of either the decision or the observations made in

the criminal proceeding by the Court of criminal jurisdiction, be it the Court of Sessions or a Court of Magistrate. No doubt that like any criminal

case the case tried by the Mahila Neethimandram against the petitioner and others is also one which has been registered by the police on the

complaint of the respondents and the standard of proof expected of the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubts and the point for

consideration of a criminal case being whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, for the proof whether

the accused facing the criminal trial is innocent or guilty has no place and therefore, this Court is of the firm view that excepting to consider the

relevant part of evidence adduced by parties regarding certain facts of the case nothing else could be taken as the relevant factor for consideration

in other proceedings much less in a civil proceeding particularly the observations or opinions offered or the decision arrived at whether convicting

or acquitting the accused and therefore, the case in hand has to be decided on different parameters as required for the proof of such questions

which are relevant for consideration in a case of such nature as one in hand filed on the part of the petitioner seeking the custody of the child and

declaration to the effect that he is the natural guardian of the child, nor would this Court be impressed that there is any impact or bearing or change

in the circumstance because of the remarks made or decision rendered by the criminal court on its observations. In this context the proposition laid

in the judgment cited by the respondents reported in Onkarmal and Another Vs. Banwarilal and Others, aptly applies to the facts of the case in

hand insofar as it has held that ""a judgment of acquittal in a criminal Court is irrelevant in a civil suit based on the same cause of action, just as a

judgment of conviction cannot in a subsequent civil suit be treated as evidence of fact on which the conviction is based. The Civil Court must

independently of the decision of the criminal Court investigate facts and come to its own finding"" gains strength and therefore it is only prudent on

the part of this Court not to decide the case in hand on any of the aspects dealt with and arrived at by the criminal forum.

Coming to the factual question, that is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for again, since on the same point the decision

arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in O. S. A. No. 115/98 dated 27-10-1998 S. Laxmanan and Another Vs. Jayant Rajan, still holds

good as it has been quoted in para No. 6 supra, this Court is in perfect agreement with the said observations made and the decision arrived at

ultimately dismissing the claim of the petitioner for custody and guardianship of the. minor as it later came to be upheld by the Hon''ble Apex Court

in the S. L. P. and hence the following order:

In result,

(i) the above Original Petition does not merit acceptance and it only becomes liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

(ii) However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

(iii) Consequently, Application No. 4233/ 2003 is also dismissed.