IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200286 OF 2016 (GW/WC)

BETWEEN:

1. VAIJINATH S/O AMBANNA BHAVIKATTI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER

2. SMT. RUKMINI W/O VAIJINATH BHAVIKATTI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD BOTH R/O H.NO.D-84, AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD, KALABURAGI …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NANDALAL S/O SHARANAPPA GAIKWAD AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER R/O H.NO.1-1097, TARFILE, OPP: RAILWAY STATION, KALABURAGI NOW WORKING AS GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER IN SINDAGI (B), DABARABAD VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI – 585103.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI V. K. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION19(1)OF FAMILY COURT ACT & R/W 47 OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, 1890, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN G AND W.C. NO.04/2013 ON DATED-17.12.2015 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT DISTRICT JUDGE AT KALABURAGI AND FURTHER DIRECTED TO AS THE MINORS ARE RESIDING WITH THE PRESENT APPELLANT IS JUSTIFIED FOR THEIR WELFARE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)

This appeal is filed by the appellants – respondents under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act read with Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by challenging the order of the District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi in Guardians and Wards Case No.4/2013 dated

17.12.2015.

2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and perused the records.

3. The appellants are challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Kalaburagi in G & WC.No.4/2013 dated 17.12.2015 for having allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 6 and 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as ‘G and W Act’).

4. The case of the appellant before the Family Court is that, the petitioner-respondent came to be genetic father of the three wards namely Kumari Nalini aged about 9 years, Jayavardhan aged about 6 years and Harshavardhan aged about 2 years who were said to be born out of the wedlock of the petitioner with his wife, who was said to be died on 10.03.2012 by leaving behind the petitioner and three minor wards. After the death of the wife, the appellants-respondents being the grand-parents took the custody of the minor wards without the consent of the petitioner and also they filed petition claiming maintenance for the minor wards. Hence, the petitioner filed the case for seeking custody of the children.

5. The respondents appeared through counsel and filed objections contending that the children are within the custody of the respondents and after the death of the deceased who is the wife of the petitioner, they have taken the children and they are ready to take care of the children. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. In support of the case of the petitioner, he examined himself as PW-1 and also examined another witness as PW-2 and got marked 8 documents. On behalf of respondents, he examined himself as DW-1 and another witness as DW-2 and got marked 14 documents. After hearing the matter, the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner – father and granted the custody of wards to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents No.1 and 2 are before this Court.

7. The Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Family Court has committed an error in handing over the custody of the children as they are minors and contended that the wife of the respondent committed suicide due to the harassment made by the respondent. Therefore, it is not a fit case for handing over the children to the father though he is the biological father. It is further submitted that the appellants are taking care of the children and