HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL C.M.A. Nos. 1102 and 1135 of 2009 DATE: 11.12.2014 C.M.A.No.1102 of 2009 Between:-
Dhulipala Padmavathi and three others .. Appellants and Nallapati Venkata Krishna .. Respondent C.M.A.No.1135 of 2009 Between:-
Dhulipala Padmavathi .. Appellant and Nallapati Venkata Krishna .. Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah) Inasmuch as the question of fact and law involved in these two appeals is one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.
While the maternal grandmother of the minor boy – Master Hemanth and three others preferred C.M.A.No.1102 of 2009 against the common order dated 30.09.2009 in G.W.O.P.No. 48 of 2008, the maternal grandmother alone preferred C.M.A.No. 1135 of 2009 against the common dated 30.09.2009 in G.W.O.P.No.
304 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in G.W.O.P.No. 304 of 2007.
The admitted facts of the case are that on 26.06.1994, Sudha Rani - daughter of the petitioner was given in marriage to the respondent during which time an extent of Ac.3.14 cents of land and 12 sovereigns of gold were presented to the respondent. Out of their wedlock, Master Hemanth was born to them. In 1995, the petitioner’s daughter secured a job at Hyderabad.
Subsequently, the respondent subjected his wife to cruelty demanding additional dowry. Somehow, the petitioner adjusted Rs.2.00 lakhs which was intended to purchase a house to be registered in the name of her daughter, but fraudulently, it was registered in the name of the respondent. The respondent filed W.P.No. 18364 of 2007 seeking protection of the minor child, and the same was dismissed. The respondent also tried to kidnap the child while the boy was on the way to school, but his attempt was spoiled by the classmates and others and a report to that effect was lodged to the police, Pedanandipadu Police Station and a case has been registered against the respondent and investigation is in progress. While so, the petitioner’s daughter – Sudha Rani died on 21.07.2007 under suspicious circumstances. Thereafter, cases and counter cases were filed against the petitioner and the respondent including G.W.O.P.Nos.304 of 2007 and 48 of 2008. The learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur after considering the evidence both oral and documentary, by Common Order dated 30.09.2009, dismissed G.W.O.P.No. 304 of 2007 filed by the maternal grandmother of the minor boy to appoint her as his guardian and over his property and allowed G.W.O.P.No. 48 of 2008 filed by the father of the minor boy for custody of the child and directed the respondents to handover the child to his natural father and the father shall permit them to visit the boy during holidays. Challenging the common order, the maternal grandmother of the minor boy has preferred the present appeals.
This Court, on 16.11.2009, after examining the boy and the parties in-camera, passed an order observing that there is no prima facie justification to handover the boy to the natural father, and accordingly, granted interim suspension of the common order dated 30.09.2009. Thereafter, this Court, by order dated 09.02.2012 in C.M.A.M.P.No. 192 of 2010, permitted the natural father to visit the minor child, Master Hemanth on every Saturday and Sunday of the month at the place where the child is residing.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that presently, the maternal grandmother is taking care of the boy and because her sons have extensive properties they have capacity to maintain the boy better than the respondent does. It is further submitted that in another three months i.e. by the end of February, 2015, the boy will be attaining majority.
As per the directions of this Court, today, the minor boy – Hemanth and his maternal grandmother are present before us. We have examined the boy who has stated that he is in safe custody of his maternal grandmother and she is also providing proper education to him. He has also sated that so far as his welfare is concerned, as on today there has been no complaint whatsoever from his maternal grandmother and he is not willing to join his natural father.
In view of the fact that the minor boy is in safe custody of his maternal grandmother and the fact that the respondent has already been granted visiting rights as is evident from the order dated 09.02.2012 passed in C.M.A.M.P.No. 192 of 2010, and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the boy is going to attain majority in February, 2015, we are not inclined to pass any order contrary to the interim suspension granted by this Court on 16.11.2009.
Hence, these two appeals are allowed and the Common Order dated 30.09.2009 passed in G.W.O.P.Nos. 304 of 2007 and 48 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the allowing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
G. CHANDRAIAH, J 11.12.2014 bcj M.S.K. JAISWAL, J