Back
Madras High Court
RATNAM
Bhagyalakshmi - Appellant
Versus
K.Narayana Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 09/21/1981
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT - SECTION 9(1) - JURISDICTION - ORDINARILY RESIDES - WELFARE OF THE MINORS - CUSTODY - SUITABILITY OF GUARDIAN - HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT - SECTION 6 - NATURAL GUARDIAN - PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION - MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL WELFARE - EDUCATION - HEALTHY SURROUNDINGS - FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN - MOTHER'S CLAIM - INCAPACITY OF APPELLANTS TO LOOK AFTER MINORS - RESPONDENT'S BETTER FACILITIES AND EARNING CAPACITY - CONGENIAL ENVIRONMENT FOR MINORS' GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT - FATHER'S GUIDANCE AND ADVICE FOR SON'S FUTURE - GIRLS' CARE AND EDUCATION - RESPONDENT'S ASSURANCE OF COMFORT, CONVENIENCE, AND EDUCATION - WELFARE OF MINORS COMPELS CUSTODY WITH RESPONDENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, the wife and father-in-law of the respondent, were in a matrimonial dispute. The wife left the respondent's house in 1975, taking the three minor children with her. She claimed maintenance from the respondent and suggested that he deposit a substantial sum in her name so that she could draw interest and incur expenses on the children. The respondent refused, stating that the money would be used to enrich the father-in-law, who was a man of no means. The respondent filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking custody of the children. The appellants resisted the application, claiming that the respondent was not a suitable guardian and that the children's welfare would be jeopardized if they were left in his care.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were unable to maintain themselves and the minor children, that the respondent was in a better position to look after the children and their welfare, and that he was best suited to be the guardian of the minor children. The court also found that the children were not averse to the idea of staying with their father and that the environment in which they were being brought up was not congenial to their welfare.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Court at Salem had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. 2. Whether the court below erred in considering only the suitability of the respondent as a guardian and not the welfare of the minors. 3. Whether the welfare of the minor children required that they should be allowed to remain with the respondent rather than with the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the District Court at Salem had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's application because the minors 'ordinarily resided' at Komarapalayam within the jurisdiction of the court. The court interpreted the words 'ordinarily resides' to mean a regular, normal, or settled home and not a temporary or forced one. The court found that the minors had been taken by the first appellant when she left her husband's abode, presumably on account of certain misunderstandings and quarrels that had arisen between the first appellant and the respondent, and though the differences between them apparently had not been patched up later, there was nothing in the evidence which would disclose that there was any idea of abandonment of the family house at Komarapalayam on the part of the first appellant. The court also held that the mere residence of the minors at Kote village, though for some years, had to be regarded as a temporary one or under compulsion or force of circumstances and could not therefore be regarded as the ordinary place of residence. 2. The court held that the court below did not err in considering only the suitability of the respondent as a guardian and not the welfare of the minors. The court found that the entire evidence had been considered and only thereafter the respondent had been declared to be the person with whom the minors should be allowed to live having regard to their welfare. The court also found that the evidence disclosed a definite incapacity on the part of the appellants to look after even the daily needs and the minimum requirement of the minors and that under these circumstances, the court below was quite correct in directing the appellants to hand over the custody of the minor children to the respondent. 3. The court held that the welfare of the minor children required that they should be allowed to remain with the respondent rather than with the appellants. The court considered the material and spiritual welfare of the minors, including their education, health, and environment. The court found that the respondent was in a better position to provide for the minors' welfare than the appellants and that the environment in which the minors were being brought up was not congenial to their welfare.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the court below directing the appellants to hand over the custody of the minor children to the respondent.
JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, against the order in O.P. 103 of 1978, District Court, Salem allowing an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying that the appellants should be directed to hand over the custody of three minor children Rama Rao, Punitha and Nagaratnam to the respondent. The first appellant is the wife of the respondent herein, while the second appellant is the father of the first appellant. The first appellant and the respondent were married in 1957 at Katapadi Village, Udipi taluk. The respondent secured a job with Kandasami Spinning Mills, Komarapalayam, in 1964, and brought the first appellant to that place where they lived together. Three children, viz. Rama Rao, Punitha and Nagaratnam were born to the first appellant and the respondent and the children had been admitted into school at Komarapalayam where they were studying. There were some minor quarrels and misunderstandings between the first appellant and the respondent. The first appellant appears to have suggested that she may be allowed to go to the village of Kote for a brief stay to which the respondent agreed and pursuant to this, the first appellant and the three minor children left Komarapalayam in or about July, 1975, and the first appellant promised to return back to Komarapalayam with the children within a short time. Thereafter, the respondent also is stated to have visited the first appellant and the children several times, when he was informed by her as well as the second appellant that the first appellant was suffering from a severe form of Arthrities and that she was undergoing treatment and believing this, the respondent had allowed the first appellant and the children to continue to live at Kote. Even thereafter, the respondent had visited the first appellant and the children once in every month and also looked after their needs. While so, in or about March 1978, according to the respondent, the appellants suggested that the respondent should deposit a substantial sum in the name of the first appellant at Udipi so that she may draw the interest thereon and incur the expenditure on behalf of the children. This suggestion, according to the respondent, was only to enrich the second appellant, as he was a man of no means and when it was found by the respondent that all the sums given by him had been utilised for the family expenses of the second appellant and only very little had been spent on the children, the respondent appears to have informed the first appellant that she should come back to Komarapalayam with the children and that further treatment can be had at that place. On the refusal of the first appellant to do so, the respondent returned to Komarapalayam and thereafter made attempts through one Y. Ramakrishnaiya to get back to Komarapalayam the first appellant and the minor children, but all attempts in that direction failed. The first appellant sent a notice on 15-4-1978, claiming a sum of Rs. 1000 per month as maintenance for herself and the minor children. According to the respondent, he even thereafter requested the first appellant to come back to Komarpalayayam with the children, but she did not do so as she was only determined to exploit the situation to squeeze some money out of the respondent. The respondent stated that he is entitled to the guardianship and custody of his minor children Rama Rao, Punitha and Nagaratnam, aged about 14, 12 and 9 respectively. It was also the further case of the respondent that in Kote village proper facilities for the education of the children were not available and that the appellants also did not command the means as well to give good education to the minor children. In addition, the respondent claimed that minor Punitha was about to attain puberty and that it became necessary to make arrangements for her marriage as well. The responde
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
