The Family Court's decision prioritizes the child's welfare over a father's custody rights due to serious criminal charges against him, validating the placement of the child with maternal grandparents.

Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Jurisdiction - Family Court at Tumakuru erroneously declared guardianship without considering ordinary residence of minor - Family Court justified in denying child custody to father facing trial for murder of mother under IPC Sections 498A and 304-B. (Paras 4, 15, 28)

(B) Procedural Justice - Adequate opportunity for cross-examination afforded to respondent, whose failure to utilize rights cannot establish grounds for reversal of trial court's decision. (Paras 22.3, 23)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged Family Court's order appointing minors' grandparents as guardians, citing lack of jurisdiction and procedural inadequacies, while the grandparents alleged wrongful behavior of the appellant contributing to the mother's death.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners are the maternal grandparents who adequately care for the child’s welfare, thus court finds them suitable guardians despite the father's claims.

Issues: Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction for guardianship declaration and if the natural father's rights to custody were unjustly denied.

Ratio Decidendi: Child's welfare influenced the court's decision to prioritize guardianship to maternal grandparents over the biological father, implicated in serious criminal allegations, supporting the principle of child welfare above parental rights.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction of the family court in custody matters. (Para 2 , 4)
2. importance of child welfare and guardianship. (Para 5 , 15)
3. background of the custody dispute and allegations. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
4. factors in determining child’s ordinary residence. (Para 12 , 14 , 19 , 21)
5. implications of parental criminal charges on custody. (Para 26 , 27)
6. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 28)

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed praying for the relief to set aside the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru in G & WC No.18/2016. By means of the impugned order, the petitioners-respondents herein were declared as guardians of the minor child namely, Jaya Vibhav son of the respondent-appellant herein N.P.Rudresh and late Shivageetha. The respondent was restrained from removing the child from the custody of the petitioners, during his minority.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their descriptions appearing in the aforesaid G & WC case.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is not the Family Court at Tumakuru, but it was the competent Court at Nelamangala Taluk of Bengaluru Rural District that would have jurisdiction in the matter. It is stated that the ordinary place of residence of the minor child was in Nelamangala Taluk and therefore, the Court of Tumakuru would have no jurisdiction. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of a Single Judge of the Orissa High Court in the matter of Konduparthi Venkateswarlu and Others v. Ramavarapu Viroja Nandan and Others , AIR 1989 ORISSA 151.

4.1 The other contention of learned counsel is that no proper opportunity was granted for cross-examining PW.1, who was petitioner No.1. It is stated therefore, a valuable right of cross-examination of PW.1 was lost, which has resulted in failure of justice and the order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.

4.2 Learned counsel has further stated that the Family Court has misdirected itself in not appointing the respondent as the guardian, despite the fact that the respondent is the natural father of the minor child and it is the natural guardian, who is entitled to the custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, G & W Act

4.3 Learned counsel for the respondent has further stated that there are strong chances of settlement between the parties, and therefore, the matter be adjourned for some time, so that the matter can be finally settled by way of a compromise settlement.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed the appeal and has stated that the Family Court had justifiably appointed the petitioners as the guardians. Given the fact that the petitioners' daughter was found hanging in the house of the respondent, which was an unnatural death and the respondent and his parents are facing trial before the District and Sessions Court in Bengaluru Rural District and giving of guardianship to the respondent would have compromised the outcome of the trial. It is further stated that adequate opportunities were given to the respondent to cross-examine the PW.1, which was availed of time and again and later, the counsel for the respondent stopped appearing before the Family Court.

6. We have perused the record of the case as well as the impugned order.

7. It appears from the record that the daughter of the petitioners namely, Shivageetha was married to the respondent on 08.11.2010 at Sri Siddalingeswara Samudaya Bhavan, Dobbaspet at Nelamangala Taluk as per customs. After the marriage, the respondent and his family members were harassing the daughter of the petitioners demanding additional dowry. Their daughter came to their house when she was pregnant and gave birth to a male child on 08.09.2011 at Siddaramanna