L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The respondents in F.C.O.P. No.117 of 2010 on the file of Family Court, Kurnool filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17-01-2012 passed therein.

2. The 2nd appellant is the mother of the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant was married to Smt. R. Shahnaz Begum, the sister of the respondent, on 13.05.2007. The couple was blessed with a female child viz., Anshra Falaq, in the next year. On 04.04.2010, the wife of the 1st appellant died. A complaint was submitted to the III Town Police Station, Kurnool, alleging that the 1st appellant, his parents and brother murdered Smt. R. Shahnaz Begum. Crime No.76 of 2010 was registered, and thereafter, a case is being tried as S.C. No.159 of 2011 in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The 1st appellant, his parents and brother are accused of the offences punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and other relevant provisions.

3. The respondent filed F.C.O.P. No.117 of 2010 under Sections 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for custody of the minor child. She has also invoked the relevant customary law of the Islam. She pleaded that, not only the 1st appellant, but all his family members are facing trial for the offence of murder of Smt. R. Shahnaz Begum and that it is no longer safe for the minor child to be in their custody.

4. The appellants filed counter opposing the O.P. The 1st appellant pleaded that being the natural father, he is entitled for custody of the minor child and the respondent has no right whatsoever. He also pleaded that the allegations made against him are totally incorrect and that the death of his wife occurred on account of electric shock.

5. Through the order under appeal, the trial Court allowed the F.C.O.P.

6. Sri Md. Saleem, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the allegation made against the 1st appellant is yet to be proved and as of now, he deserves to be treated as innocent. He contends that being the natural father of the minor child, the 1st appellant is entitled for the custody and at the most the respondent can seek the relief of visiting the minor child occasionally. He submits that the trial Court has misapplied the relevant provisions of law and that the decree passed by it cannot be sustained.

7. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that once the 1st appellant is accused of causing the death of his wife, it is difficult to expect any safety to the minor child. He contends that whether one goes by the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act or the Customary Law of Islam, the respondent, being the sister of the deceased Smt. R. Shahnaz Begum, is entitled for custody. He contends that the trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and no interference is warranted.

8. The trial Court framed only one point for consideration viz., ‘whether the respondent is entitled to claim for the custody of the minor girl?’

9. On behalf of the respondent, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 compromising the certified copy of the F.I.R., birth certificate of the minor girl, photographs of Shahnaz Begum, who is the wife of the 1st appellant, are filed. On behalf of the appellants, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.

10. The points that arise for consideration before us are:

1. Whether the respondent is entitled to seek the custody of the child and, if so, the nature thereof?

2. Whether the order passed by the trial Court warrants any interference?

POINT No.1:

11. It is a matter of record that the 1st appellant was married to the sister of the respondent and a minor child was born to them in the year 2008. The wife of the 1st appellant, however, met with an untimely death. There is serious dispute as to the cause of the death.

While according to t