HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL C.M.A. No. 327 of 2008 DATE: 09.10.2014 Between:-
Kukkala Anjaiah and another .. Appellants and Kukkala Nirmala .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 24.10.2007 made in G.W.O.P.No. 254 of 2006 by the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda whereunder the petition filed by the mother seeking custody of her minor son namely Kukkala Kartheek, was allowed.
The paternal grandfather and the uncle of the minor boy, who are the respondents in G.W.O.P., have preferred this appeal.
The admitted facts of the case are that Kukkala Narsimha, who is the husband of the original petitioner, died on 26.03.2004. The couple were blessed with a son by name Kartheek who is said to be aged 13 years, and after the death of Narsimha, the custody of the child was given to his paternal grandfather and uncle, however in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge in G.W.O.P.No. 254 of 2006, the minor boy is presently in the custody of the mother.
There is no dispute that the respondent herein being the mother of the minor boy is the natural guardian and she has got more interest in the child rather than the appellants herein namely paternal grandfather and the uncle. During the course of enquiry in the trial Court, oral and documentary evidence was adduced in the shape of PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 and 2. The learned trial Court has perused the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child rests in the custody of the child being given to the natural mother.
Having carefully perused the material on record, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is perfectly justified as the same is based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. It is also based on the fact that the original petitioner being the mother of the child is more suitable to be the guardian of the minor child rather than the appellants herein.
In that view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly 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