B. PARVATHARAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are preferred under Section 47 of the Guardians and wards Act, 1890 ( the Act for short) questioning the order dated 14-6-1995 of the Family Court at Hyderabad in O. P. No. 35 of 1995, which was so numbered on 3-6-1995 after O. P. No. 1021 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, was transferred to that Court after it was established on 4-3-1995. C. M. A. Nos. 793 and 886 of 1995 are preferred by the respondent and the petitioner in the O. P. respectively against that order. They are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THIS is a case where the mother and father contest for the guardianship of the person of their children and illustrates the psychological trauma experienced by the children in the process at their very impressionable age. Humaira Khan is the mother and petitioner in the O. P. Mohammed Shaheryar khan is the father and respondent in the O. P. They will be referred to hereafter as the petitioner and the respondent respectively. They belong to the Sunni sect of Muslims. They were married on 3-12-1987. They have three minor children. The eldest is a son born on 20-2-1989 and named Sardar Yar Khan @ Umair; the second is also a son, born on 15-9-1991 and named Mohammed Mohiuddin masood Yar Khan @ Uzair; and the third and the last is the daughter born on 27-1-1993 and named Barkatunnissa Begum @ Inaya.

( 3 ) SERIOUS differences seem to have cropped up between the spouses even before Umair was born. Less than one month before Umair wt. s born, on 24-1-1989 the petitioner was taken away to her parental home by her father A statement of the petitioner s father was reduced to writing on stamp paper on that day i. e. 24-1-1989 (marked as Ex. A-16 ). This bears the signatures of the petitioner s father, petitioner, respondent and his mother, sister and brother-in- law. Petitioner s father stated therein, inter alia, as follows:"the purpose was to take my pregnant daughter (ninth month pregnancy) to our house, as it is the first pregnancy of my daughter. But Mr. Shaheryar objected and created tension by using filthy words. Now I have to state that under these tense conditions, my daughter became pale and upset and wanted to come home along with us. In these circumstances, I am taking my daughter to my house, before the following witnesses. "she gavecomplaint dated 6-5-1989 (certified copy of it issued on 24-10-1994 was marked as Ex. A-22) against the respondent to the Inspector of Police, sanathnagar alleging that he was making dowry demands . What is relevant for the present case is that therein she stated, apart from that she was being grossly ill treated,;"his tortures for more dowry became vigorous day by day and his anger became violent with threat to kill me, and remarry another girl. " (emphasis supplied) on that complaint lodged on 13-5-1989 in P. S. Sanathnagar, Crime No. 146 of 1989 was registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Police filed the charge-sheet before the Court of the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court at Hyderabad and cognizance of the offence was taken and the matter was taken on file as c. C. No. 149 of 1989. Respondent took a second wife on 20-6-1989.

( 4 ) ON 30-3-1990 the respondent preferred M. P. No. 327 of 1990 praying for reinvestigation into Crime No. 146 of 1989 of P. S. Sanathnagar, and case c. C. No. 149 of 1989 pending before the Manila Court be closed. He stated therein that the said case against him was a false one with an ulterior motive to compelhim to give share in his ancestral property, and that his own sisters were creating problems against him and created a rift between him and the petitioner for their personal gains. He alleged that the petitioner deserted him and also kidnapped his son and kept him in illegal custody at her Nampally house and was not allowing him to meet his own son. He also ref

Click Here to Read the rest of this document