AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—The present appeal is directed against the final order passed by the learned III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in Case G & WC No. 116/2005 dated 19.03.2011. The appellant was the petitioner in the said case. The parties will be referred to as petitioner and respondents. The petitioner had married one lady by name Smt. Tripura, who was the daughter of the respondents herein. Their marriage was solemnized on 17.11.1989 at. Bangalore, as per Hindu rites. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born and her name is Bhargad and she was born on 24.05.1997. The petitioner''s wife Tripura died on 02.06.1997 when the child was hardly 10 days old. Since then, the girl child has been in the custody of the respondents. When the petition was filed, the age of Kum. Bhargavi, the daughter of the petitioner was 8 years and as on today, her age is about 16 years.
A petition came to be filed u/s 7 read with Section 25 of Guards and Wards Act to direct the respondents to handover the ward to his custody on the ground that the interest of the child would be more secure in his hands than the respondents. The said petition came to be objected to, strongly by the respondents therein.
Mr. M.S. Srinivasa Murthy, has been examined as PW1 and Smt. Jayalakshmi-second respondent has been examined as RW1. On behalf of the petitioner 32 exhibits and on behalf of the respondents 40 exhibits have been got marked. After hearing the arguments and enquiring the child in his chambers on 18.11.2010, the learned Judge has dismissed the petition on 19.03.2011. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.
The matter was heard at length about the admission.
We have heard Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the appellant.
It is contended before this Court that the Trial Court has not property applied its mind to the facts of the case and that it has not analysed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective. It is contended that the Trial Court has adopted a wrong approach to the real state of affairs and that it has failed to take into consideration, that the interest of the child would be more secure in the hands of the petitioner than the respondents. But the impugned order is stated to be opposed to law, facts and probabilities.
After hearing the arguments and perusing the records inclusive of the impugned order, the following point arises for our consideration:
Whether the case on hand is fit to be admitted?
The petitioner has been examined as PW1. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he has already married a lady by name Vedavathy. According to him, he has admitted his daughter Bhargavi in the Central School and the mother''s name is shown as Vedavathy. It is un-understandable as to how the name of Vedavathy could be mentioned as the mother of Bhargavi, who was born to Tripura.
Petitioner as well as the second wife are working couple. First respondent is a retired government official and gets pension of Rs. 8,092/-. It is pointed out by the Trial Court, relying upon the decision in the case of Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs. Jayant Ganguli, , that it is not the better financial resources of either parents or their love for the child would be more relevant rather, the determining factor would be the welfare of the child.
RW1 Smt. Jayalakshmi has deposed that once in a week she used to take Bhargavi to the house of the petitioner and petitioner used to threaten her to eat more and was making her to do all household work. Anyhow, Smt. Jayalakshmi has not seen the attitude of the petitioner towards Bhargavi personally. Whatever she has deposed before the Court is on the basis of the alleged say of the child. Therefore, what is the experience of the child is more important. Since normal children of that age would not tell lie to any person. In this regard, Court recorded the statement of the child Bhargavi on 18.11.2010 in the chamber According to the statement, she does not like to live with her father since he is residing with his second wife and they did not look after her properly whenever she used to go to their house earlier. Even otherwise, the petitioner and his wife are employees and have to go to their work everyday in the morning and will have to return only after 6 O''clock. The child had been in the custody of the respondents ever since her birth and has no grouse against them. Whatever is required for her, the respondents are ready to provide to their granddaughter and more than anything else, they have affection in abundance towards this child as the child has lost her mother at a very young age.
The learned Judge has discussed the entire oral and documentary evidence in right perspective. The respondents have produced sufficient documents to show that they have savings in Post Offices, Banks and also in the LIC. Exs. R29 to 36 have been produced to that effect. Ex. R38 is the sale deed dated 28.09.1992 in respect of the house property purchased by respondent No. 1 Srinivasa Sharma. Ex. R39 is another sale deed dated 29.05.2009 which stands in the name of both the respondents jointly.
The respondents have adequate financial capacity to provide the basic minimum requirements of their granddaughter apart from providing good education. More than anything else, the child needs lot of care and affection and that is in abundance, as is evident from the statement recorded by the learned Judge in his chamber.
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the petition and we do not find anything to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in dismissing the petition. Accordingly, the case on hand is unfit for admission and is to be dismissed at the threshold.
ORDER
The appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant is dismissed. The impugned order dated 19.03.2011 passed by the III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in G & WC No. 116/2005 stands affirmed. We pass no order as to costs.