MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAMASWAMI
Samuel Stephen Richard
Versus
Stella Richard
O.P. No.207 of 1954
Decided On : 2 November, 1954
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT - CUSTODY OF MINOR - WELFARE OF THE MINOR - PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - AGE, SEX, RELIGION, CHARACTER AND CAPACITY OF THE PROPOSED GUARDIAN, WISHES OF THE MINOR, ETC. - COURT'S DISCRETION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a husband, filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking custody of his minor daughter, Priscilla, from the respondent, his wife. The couple had been living amicably until the petitioner's father died, after which they moved in with the petitioner's mother and sister. Differences arose between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, leading to separate cooking arrangements and eventually to the respondent leaving the petitioner, taking their daughter with her. The respondent filed a petition under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter, which was dismissed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the welfare of the minor was the paramount consideration in deciding the question of custody. The court considered various factors, including the age, sex, religion, character and capacity of the proposed guardian, the wishes of the minor, and the existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor. The court found that the respondent, the mother, was better suited to have custody of the minor than the petitioner, the father.
Issues: 1. Whether the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in deciding the question of custody under the Guardians and Wards Act? 2. What factors should be considered by the court in determining the welfare of the minor? 3. Whether the court has the discretion to transfer the custody of a minor from one parent to the other?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in deciding the question of custody under the Guardians and Wards Act. 2. The court should consider various factors in determining the welfare of the minor, including the age, sex, religion, character and capacity of the proposed guardian, the wishes of the minor, and the existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor. 3. Yes, the court has the discretion to transfer the custody of a minor from one parent to the other, but such discretion should be exercised in the best interests of the minor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that it was not in the best interests of the minor to transfer her custody to the petitioner.
ORDER : - This is a petition under S.25, Guardians and Wards Act.
2. The facts are: The Petitioner Samuel Stephan Richard married the respondent Stella Richard on 28-5-1941. Both are Protestant Indian Christians and the Petitioner is an employee in the East Asiatic Company, Madras, drawing a salary of Rs.75/- and dearness allowance of Rs.47-8-0 per month and the respondent is a school mistress in an aided higher elementary school drawing a salary of Rs.50/- per month. Out of this union a daughter Priscilla was borne on 20-4-1942. They were living amicably in Chintadripet, Madras. Then after the father of the petitioner died in June 1951, the petitioner and respondent moved to Pudupet and started living with the mother and sister of the petitioner. On account of the differences between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law, apparently separate cooking seems to have been set up. This did not solve the problem and there seems to have been bitter quarrels between the husband and the wife. Finally, on 31-7-1953 the respondent left her husband taking with her daughter. Then this respondent filed a petition under S.488, Criminal P.C., M. P. No.836 of 1953 in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, claiming a maintenance of Rs.35/- p.m. for herself and Rs.20/- p.m. for her minor daughter. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate dismissed this petition taking a narrow view of "cruelty" entitling the respondent herein to refuse to live with her husband and to get maintenance. Cruelty in S.488 is not limited to personal violence causing danger to life, limb or health bodily or mental or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. Where an act of violence is found to be such as to found a reasonable belief of further violence or where it is of a very grave character itself the wife is entitled to relief. Even an accumulation of minor acts of illtreatment causing or likely to cause suffering to the spouse to break down under the strain constitutes cruelty. If moral force is systematically exerted to compel the submission of a wife, to such a degree and so long as to injure her health, although there be no actual violence, it amounts to legal cruelty.
Under the previous code cruelty recognised was legal cruelty as defined by the courts - Rukmin v. Pearelal, 11 All 480 (A). Under the present Code which does not contain the word cruelty a systematic course of illtreatment and oppression is a good ground for the wifes refusal. - Mt. Kaluiya v. Hira, AIR 1929 All 950 (B). It is unnecessary for me to canvass these findings further because I am not sitting in Revision thereon. It is sufficient to point out that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate considered the story of cruelty and illtreatment as exaggerated and that if the allegations made at the trial were true those details would have found a place in the lawyers notice sent prior to the petition for maintenance and that the only occasion of beating by the husband proved was that he slapped her and shut her mouth with his hand when she was overtalkative even after P.W.2 read out the 6th verse in the 10th Chap. of St. Marks Gospel, which counsels husband and wife to live amicably. The husband has thereupon filed this petition for directing the respondent to deliver custody of the minor child Priscilla under S.25, Guardians and Wards Act.
3. Both sides adduced no evidence and the minor girl was produced in Court by the mother. On my questioning the girl, who appeared to be intelligent, she stated that she wanted to live with her mother only and not with her father.
4. In deciding the question of custody, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. This is in conformity with the provisions of Ss.7 and 17 of the Act. The welfare of the minor has been pointed out as the guiding factor in S.7 in the matter of appointment of a guardian. S.17 has specifically subordinated the personal law of the minor regulating guardianship to the paramount co
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.