<Whether the trial Court was justified in directing the

appellant to handover custody of minor children Kum.Supriya

and Mas.Gagan to the respondent ?= is the question involved

in this case.

2.

The respondent was the petitioner and the

appellant was the respondent in G & W No.28/2012 on the

file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. For the

purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to

henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

3.

The petitioner filed G & WC No.28/2012 against

the respondent under Section 7 and 10 of the Guardian and

Wards Act, 1890 seeking direction to the respondent to

3

handover the custody of his minor daughter Kum.Supriya and

minor son Mas.Gagan to him.

4.

The petitioner was married to respondent9s

daughter Sheela @ Divya on 06.08.2006. Their first daughter

Kum.Supriya was born on 24.04.2008 and the son Gagan

was born on 11.12.2010. On 20.05.2011 when Sheela and

the petitioner were traveling on his motorbike along with

their children she fell from the motorbike and died.

5.

Regarding the said incident, the respondent filed

complaint before N.R.Police, Mysuru alleging that the

petitioner committed murder of Sheela and projected that as

a motorbike accident. On the basis of such complaint the

petitioner, his parents, sister and brother-in-law were

prosecuted in SC No.229/2011. The petitioner was in judicial

custody in the said case for about one year. During that

period, the minor children were taken to the custody of the

respondent, their maternal grand mother.

6.

The petitioner claimed that he was falsely

implicated in SC No.229/2011 and he had taken care of his

4

wife and children. He further claimed that the respondent is

a person of no means, living in a remote village and she is

incapable of bringing up the children in the required manner.

He further claimed that having regard to the social

background and literacy level of the respondent, the welfare

of the children in her custody will suffer. Whereas he is

financially and in all other respects fit to bring up his children

and he is also the natural guardian of his children. Therefore,

he sought custody of the children.

7.

The respondent contested the said petition

denying the allegations with regard to her inabllity to bring

up the children and false implication of the petitioner. She

claimed that the petitioner being the predator of her daughter

is not a fit person to bring up the children. She also claimed

that there is threat to the lives of the children, if the custody

is handed over and that she is taking care of all the needs of

the children.

8.

The parties adduced evidence. In support of the

case of the petitioner he was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P1 to

P14 were marked. The respondent examined herself as RW.1

5

and RW.2 was examined on her behalf. Exs.R.1 to R.6 were

marked on behalf of the respondent. The trial Court by the

impugned judgment and order allowed the petition on the

following grounds:

i)

The petitioner is the natural guardian;

ii)

The fact of respondent filing the petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner on behalf of the

minor children shows that she is unable to maintain them.

iii)

Her evidence shows that the respondent during

the life time of her daughter did not take care of the daughter

and grand children. That shows that she cannot meet the

requirements of the children.

iv)

The marriage of Sheela was performed by her

aunt and uncle. That goes to show that the respondent could

not afford to meet the requirement of her own daughter.

Therefore, petitioner is a fit person to bring up the children.

v)

By the judgment and order dated 30.12.2019

the petitioner and his relatives were acquitted in SC

No.229/2011.

6

9.

The counsel for the appellant reiterating the

grounds of appeal submits that though the respondent claims

that he is well-off, he drove the children to file petition for

maintenance.

Even

the

amount

awarded

in

Crl.Misc.No.131/2013 is not