AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.108 of 2015 Judgment: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. We have heard Ms. Suhaasi Palle, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch. Jayakrishna, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Appellant filed an application under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act vide G.W.O.P.No.13 of 2012 seeking custody of his minor daughter i.e., B. Varalaxmi @ B. Sowmya. The marriage of the appellant with his wife was performed on 06.11.2009. They blessed with a female child on 20.11.2010. Thereafter, appellant’s wife committed suicide. Respondent No.2, the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint against appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and 498-A of IPC and a case in Cr.No.117 of 2011 was registered. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the appellant herein for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the same was ended in acquittal.

3. As stated above, appellant herein filed the aforesaid O.P seeking custody of minor child. In support of his claim, appellant examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited Exs-A1 to A3 documents. Opposing the said application, respondent No.2 himself examined as RW-1, one Sri D. Yadaiah and Sri M. Krishnaiah were examined as RW-2 and RW-3. Respondents have filed Exs.B1 to B6 documents. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid O.P holding that as per the deposition of RWs 1 to 3, appellant married another woman i.e., Anjamma @ Santhoshamma, daughter of Kondappa and Venkatappa on 25.08.2013. There is also a reference with regard to filing of M.C.No.5 of 2012. Now, the child is aged about fifteen (15) years as on today and she is staying with respondents, her maternal grandparents. As discussed supra, despite granting opportunity, appellant herein failed to appear before this Court.

4. Upon consideration of the entire evidence, learned Family Court dismissed the aforesaid O.P. filed by appellant for custody of his minor daughter. It is a reasoned order and it does not deserve any interference of this Court in the present appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

5. In the light of the above, this appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

K. LAKSHMAN, J VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J

23.10.2025.

GNP/ADT