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

1984 Supreme(Mad) 549

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAINAR SUNDARAM
D. Rajaiah - Appellant
Versus
Dhanapal and Another - Respondent
Case No : A.A.O. No. 622 of 1984
Decided On : 21 December 1984

Advocates Appeared:S. Ramaswami, T. Martin, Advocates.

The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining guardianship and custody, and the father, as the natural guardian of his unmarried minor daughters, has the primary right to their guardianship and custody unless there are compelling circumstances to deprive him of this right.

Headnote:

GUARDIANSHIP AND CUSTODY - HINDU MINOR GIRLS - FATHER'S RIGHT - WELFARE OF THE MINORS - PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - COURT'S DISCRETION - FATHER'S NATURAL GUARDIANSHIP - NOT DISQUALIFIED - MATERNAL GRANDFATHER'S CLAIM - REJECTED - CUSTODY WITH FATHER - IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINORS.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the guardianship and custody of two Hindu minor girls, Meena alias Aarthi and Priya, after the death of their mother. The father, the first respondent, sought custody of the girls, while the maternal grandfather, the appellant, filed a petition to be declared as the guardian and for continuing their custody with him.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the father, as the natural guardian of his unmarried minor daughters, has the primary right to their guardianship and custody. The court found that the father had not been disqualified from being a guardian and that there were no compelling circumstances to deprive him of his parental rights. The court also considered the welfare of the minors and found that it would be in their best interest to remain in the custody of their father.

Issues: 1. Whether the father's natural guardianship rights should be upheld or denied. 2. Whether the maternal grandfather's claim for guardianship and custody should be granted. 3. Which party can provide a more suitable and beneficial environment for the upbringing of the minor girls.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of Hindu law and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which emphasize that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining guardianship and custody. The court also considered the father's natural right as the guardian of his unmarried minor daughters and found that he had not been disqualified from exercising this right. The court further held that the maternal grandfather's claim for guardianship and custody was not supported by strong and convincing circumstances that would warrant depriving the father of his parental rights.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the maternal grandfather's appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court, which had dismissed the maternal grandfather's petition for guardianship and custody. The court found that it was in the best interest of the minor girls to remain in the custody of their father.

Judgment :-

This civil miscellaneous appeal concerns the guardianship and custody of two Hindu minor girls. The first minor girl named Meena alias Aarthi was born on 13-5-1972. The second minor girl named Priya was born on 12-9-1973. They have lost their mother. The mother is stated to have died on 10-8-1982. Their father is alive and he is the first respondent in this appeal. The Appellant is their maternal grandfather. The facts placed in the case have disclosed that the marriage between the parents of the minor children took place on 26-5-1969. The father is an Engineer and he is a M. Tech., and his profession took him to Bhopal, Delhi and Tiruchirapalli. During these years, his wife, the mother of the minor girls was alive. His employment as such was with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., (BHEL) and he was so employed last at Tiruchirapalli. The mother of the minor children seemed to have fallen sick and she had come to her parents' house at Madurai for treatment. The two minor children seemed to have been brought to Madurai in May, 1982, since their mother was taking treatment there and they were joined in a school at Madurai. Until the death of the mother, no problem seemed to have cropped up. But the demise of the mother seemed to have brought about problems over the guardianship and custody of the two minor children. The father is stated to have resigned his assignment with BHEL with the intention to start an industry of his own and it is stated that he borrowed moneys from the maternal grandfather, namely, his father-in-law. The father also was indicating his anxiety to raise a loan over the jewels of the mother, namely his late wife, for this commitment. It is admitted that the said jewels are in the custody of the maternal grandfather. The father also began to re-claim the custody of his two minor children, which he is lawfully entitled to and he had been writing letters with that end in view. But the maternal grandfather seemed and seems to have a different idea and he wants to have the custody of the two minor children with him. The maternal grandfather preferred O. P. No. 98 of 1983 before the District Judge, Madurai South, to declare or in the alternative to appoint himself as the guardian for the two minor children and for continuing their custody with him. The father of the two minor children contested the Original Petition and the learned District Judge did not countenance the case of the maternal grandfather and dismissed the petition, and the maternal grandfather has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal against the orders of the learned District Judge.

2. Mr. G. Ramaswami, learned counsel appearing for the maternal grandfather, the appellant in this appeal, would draw a chart of comparison to impress upon this Court that though the father is the natural guardian of his two minor children, yet on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court should go by the principle of the paramount interest of the minors and if that principle is kept in mind, the Court should only countenance the case of the maternal grandfather for guardianship and custody. Learned counsel exposed the anxiety of his client that if not guardianship, at least the custody of the minor children should be left with the maternal grandfather. As points speaking in favour of retaining the guardianship and custody of the minor children with the maternal grandfather, the following factors were delineated by the learned counsel: (1) The maternal grandfather is aged 60 and the maternal grandmother is aged 50 years; (2) The financial position of the maternal grandfather is sound; (3) Ever since May 1982, the minor children are with the maternal grandparents. The minor children are studying in a school at Madurai, and it is not worthwhile to disturb their education by taking them away from the custody of the maternal grandparents at Madurai; (4) The jewels of the deceased mother are with the grandparents and they shall be given to the minor chi























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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