HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL C.M.A. No. 702 of 2008 DATE: 09.10.2014 Between:
Belagam Vidya Sagar .. Appellant and Smt.Belagam Kaleswari .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah) This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 03.10.2007 passed in G.O.P.No. 257 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam whereby the petition filed by the appellant – father under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, seeking to grant custody of the child namely Master Rohit to him, was dismissed.
The admitted facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent took place on 29.08.1999. The appellant worked as Doctor in Narketpally of Nalgonda District for about five months. While so, on 09.04.2001, they gave birth to a son namely Master Rohit, and subsequently, in the month of June, 2002, the appellant was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Area Hospital, Parvathuipuram. Thereafter, disputes arose between them and they filed cases against each other. In the counter affidavit filed before the trial Court, the respondent – wife averred that she is working as a Lecturer in Computer Science at Sri Chaitanya Junior College, Visakhapatnam and her son is in her custody and she is looking after the welfare of the minor boy. She has further stated that her husband left her and her son on 02.07.2002 at her parents’ house and since then he has never tried either to contact the child or to see him till 2005.
During trial, the petitioner – appellant examined himself as PW1 and the respondent was examined as RW1. While Exs.A1 to A15 were marked on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the respondent.
After considering the pleadings on behalf of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issue.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of his minor son?
The Family Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, found that the respondent with sound financial capacity of her husband and also out of her own earnings is capable of giving good education to her son, and she is taking more care for the development of the boy in all respects and she being the mother of the boy is the natural guardian. It is also observed that the fact that the respondent is working as Computer Lecturer clearly falsifies the contention of the petitioner – appellant that the respondent has got mental disease.
In a case where father filed an application seeking custody of the minor boy who is being looked after by the mother with all facilities, paramount consideration should be welfare of the child, and in the normal circumstances, welfare of the child is always safe in the custody of the natural mother. In the instant case, nothing is brought to the notice of the trial Court that the child is in the custody of the father. The trial Court, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, found that the custody of the minor child is safe with the natural mother.
Having carefully perused the impugned order, we are of the view that the findings arrived at by the Family Court are perfectly justified and we do not see any reason to interfere with them.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
G. CHANDRAIAH, J 09.10.2014 M.S.K. JAISWAL, J bcj