Respondents cannot claim for custody of minor child.

Thanikkachalam, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 8. 1996, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in C.M.P. No.8624 of 1994 in A.A.O. No.791 of 1996.

2. The appellant herein is the father of the minor girl Rathana Kumari. The appellant married one Jayalakshmi according to Hindu rites on 28. 1987 at Tuticorin. After the marriage the said Jayalakshmi was taken to Madras, where the appellant herein is residing with his parents and brother. Out of the wedlock, the minor girl Rathana Kumari was born on 20.6.1988. Jayalakshmi died on 7. 1994. After the death of Jayalakshmi the appellant herein and his parents entrusted the custody of the minor child to the respondents herein. The appellant herein also said to have executed a registered power of Attorney dated 7. 1994 in favour of the respondents herein to look after the minor child. A settlement deed was also executed by the appellant herein settling certain properties in favour of the minor child. However, on 9. 1994, the appellant cancelled the general Power of Attorney deed and the settlement deed and a publication was also made in Malai Malar dated 29. 1994 to this effect. That the respondents herein refused to hand over the custody of the minor child to the appellant. Under such circumstances, the respondents filed D.W.O.P. No.137 of 1994 under the Guardians and Wards Act, praying for a declaration that the appellant herein, who is the father of the minor child, is unfit to be the guardian of the minor child and appointing either of them as guardian of the person and property of the minor child. The respondents herein also alleged in the said petition that the appellant ill-treated Jayalakshmi and she died on account of such ill-treatment; that the appellant herein is addicted to drink, a womaniser, and a man with all sorts of vices. Respondents further alleged that the appellant is attempting to grab the properties given by the father of Jayalakshmi to her at the time of her marriage with the appellant. Respondents herein examined themselves as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and one other person was examined as P.W.3. The appellant herein filed his counter and examined himself as P.W.1. Considering the facts arising in this case, the District Court came to the conclusion that all the charges levelled against the appellant herein were not proved and the respondents herein failed to make out a case to show that the appellant herein, who is father of the minor child, is not a fit person to be as guardian of the person and property of the minor child. The district court further held that the appellant herein is the father and natural guardian and the custody of the minor child by the respondents herein is not sanctioned by law. Accordingly the original petition was dismissed on 16. 1996.

3.. Thereafter, the appellant herein took steps to got the custody of the minor child. In the meanwhile, the respondents herein filed A.A.O.No.791 of 1996 on the file of this Court against the order passed by the District Court. In the said appeal, the respondents herein filed. C.M.P. No.8624 of 1996 for an order of interim injunction, restraining the appellant herein from interfering with respondents’ custody over the minor child. Interim injunction was granted on 7. 1996. The appellant herein filed C.M.P. No.9304 of 1996 to vacate the order of interim injunction. While disposing of C.M.P. No.9304 of 1996, this Court, by order dated 8. 1996, made the interim injunction absolute. It is against that order, the present L.P. Appeal has been filed by the father of the minor child.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted as follows:

The appellant herein is the father and natural guardian of the minor child. The marriage between the appellant and Jayalakshmi was performed according to Hindu rites. The minor child is Hindu by religion. The respondents herein are christians. Therefore they are not entitled to have the custody of the minor child, who is