SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(AP) 910

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
A.V. SESHA SAI, J.
Kotholla Komuraiah & Another
Versus
Kotholla @ Bikkanuri @ Gorlakadi Kanaka Laxmi
C.R.P.No.5210 of 2012
Decided on : 29-10-2013

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:K. Govind, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mrs. D. Pramada, Advocate.

Headnote:Guardian and Wards Act 1890 Sections 12, 7, 8, and 17 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, Sections 2, 4(1)(a) & (b), 6, 7 and 13---Interim custody of minor - Remarriage of widow mother cannot be a ground for denying custody of child--- Welfare, interest and desire of minor, is of supreme importance---Custody with grandparents maintained with visitation rights to mother.

Judgment :

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed assailing the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Medak at Siddipet in I.A.No.340 of 2012 in O.P.No.120 of 2012. By virtue of the said order, the learned Judge allowed the said I.A., appointing the respondent herein as guardian of the ward Master G.Anil Kumar, till the disposal of the main O.P.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present revision are as under:

3. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.120 of 2012 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Medak at Siddipet against the petitioners herein under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 48 and 49 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) seeking the following relief:

“To order for appointing the petitioner as guardian and order for the custody of ward namely Master Anil Kumar S/o Narsimulu, aged 06 years, presently residing at Pamulaparthi village to the petitioner by directing the respondents to hand over the ward to the petitioner with costs”.

4. Along with the said Original Petition, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.340 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Act, seeking the following relief:

“To direct the respondents 1 and 2 namely (1) Kotholla Komuraiah S/o Narsaiah, age 80 years, R/o Pamulaparthi village, Revenue mandal, Vargal (2) Kotholla Kondavva W/o Komuraiah, age 70 years, R/o Pamulaparthi village, Revenue mandal Vargal who are having the custody of the minor shall produce the minor before this Court on at the Hon’ble Court pleases to specify and appoint the petitioner as guardian for the minor for interim protection of the petitioner”.

5. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.340 of 2012 states that the petitioner/respondent herein is the widow of one Kotholla Narsimulu and their marriage took place on 22.2.2003 and out of their wedlock, they begot a son namely Gorlakadi Anil Kumar on 19.12.2006, who is hereinafter referred to as ward; Kotholla Narsimulu passed away on 9.2.2007 and after his death, his parents drove her out of their house and since then, she has been residing with her parents at Theegul village; the respondents (petitioners herein) are the parents of her deceased husband; at about 12 months back, she married one Bikkanuri Raju of Itikyala village and residing with him; she got admitted the ward (Master G.Anil Kumar) at Gayathri Vidyalayam, Theegul on 21.6.2010 and in the month of January 2011, just one week prior to Sankranthi festival, the respondents (petitioners herein) came and took away the ward without any notice and kept him with them and now they made the Boy as Shepard to look after their flock of the sheep; the respondents herein (petitioners herein) became old and unable to do work to maintain themselves and they are having just half acre of land at Pamulaparthi village and they took away the Boy with their selfish and ill-motive to get the services of the ward; her father Gorlakadi Mallaiah and mother have affectionately maintained and looked after the ward at Theegul and prepared to provide good education by admitting him in English Medium School i.e. Gayathri Vidyalaya at Theegul and if the ward is allowed to remain in the custody of the paternal grand parents, the future of the ward would be ruined; her present husband is prepared to take the ward in adoption and has agreed to bear expenses to meet the future education for a bright future of the ward and the paternal grand parents are illiterates and cannot maintain the ward decently and the paramount consideration is the welfare of the ward rather than other circumstances; in spite of number of requests, paternal grand parents bluntly refused to handover the ward and on 7.1.2012 and 25.5.2012, she went to their house and demanded the grand parents to give custody, but the same was refused; the paternal grand parents have no right to act as parents, nor they have right to keep the ward in their




































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top