Parents being much attached to minor child deserves custody of minor child.

Lakshmanan, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act XXXII of 1956. This Original Petition concerns guardianship and custody of the minor girl Dhanalakshmi alias Chithra aged about 9 months on the date of the petition. She was born to the petitioner/Velan and one M. Nageswari on 23.3.1987 in Madras. The petitioner/father is natural guardian for the minor. The child lost her mother due to jaundice.

2. The facts placed in this have disclosed that the marriage between the parents of the minor child took place on 10.2.1986 in Madras, according to Hindu rites and customs. The parents of the minor were residing at No. 21, Kannabiran Koil Street, Perambur, Madras-11. However, unfortunately on 15.10.1987 the mother of the child died due to jaundice. Even before the petitioner could complete all the ceremonies for his wife, respondents 2 and 3 mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner, without the permission or consent of the petitioner stealthily removed the child on 16.10.1987, when the petitioner was away. It is seen from the records that the demise of the mother of the child seems to have brought about problems over the guardianship and custody of the minor child. The petitioner approached respondents 1 to 3 and demanded them, to return the custody of the child to the petitioner, but the respondents refused to hand over the custody of the child. Thereafter, on enquiry the petitioner came to know that the child was left by respondents 1 and 2 grand-parents, with the third respondent. The third respondent is the sister of the petitioner's wife and the 4th respondent is the brother of the petitioner's wife. Several attempts made by the petitioner through mediations also failed. So the petitioner gave a police complaint on 12.12.1987 with the police and the 4th respondent who appeared for enquiry, agreed to hand over the child on 15-12-1987, but he did not turn up to hand over the custody of the child inspite of the undertakings given by the 4th respondent. But on the other hand respondents 1 and 2 caused a notice dated 17.12.1987 to be issued to the petitioner with frivolous and imaginary allegations as if the child should be only with the custody of the third respondent. It is also stated in the petition that the third respondent is already having four children of her own. It appears from the records that the third respondent's husband is a record clerk in the Raj Bhavan and they are residing in Raj Bhavan Residential Quarters. In addition, it was claimed by the respondents that there was no female helper in the residence of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 reside in the village and also they are rustic. The petitioner's child cannot be allowed to be with the family of the third respondent because the petitioner's child requires special attention and care. The petitioner alone can give the child a better health, food, medicines, dress and education and better atmosphere and as the natural father.

3. In contrast the respondents would stress the following factors as speaking against having guardianship and custody of the minor child with the father/petitioner:

The child being of tender age it was impossible for the petitioner to take care of the child. The petitioner had no female members to help in his family. The only relative who was living with him was his father Jayaseelan, who is also of old age having ill-health. The petitioner and his father are addicted to drinks. The respondents had their own doubts about the availability of the jewels belonging to the deceased Nageswari with the petitioner. The petitioner being legal and natural guardian of the child, that right alone will not give him to have the custody of the child. The respondents are not strangers to the minor child. The welfare of the minor child will be better only in the hands of respondents 2 and 3. The first respondent is a landlord and has go