HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL C.M.A.No. 7 of 2008 Dated: 16.10.2014 Between:
Murrem Nagireddy Vs.
Gajjala Narayana Reddy.
… Appellant … Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL C.M.A.No. 7 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal) The present appeal is directed against the orders of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa in Guardian OP No.522 of 2005, dt. 26.06.2007, by and under which the request of the petitioner/father to appoint him as guardian of the minor children was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M. Parthasarathy Reddy and M.Nitish Kumar Reddy, who are now aged about 17 years and 16 years respectively, are the sons of the appellant herein. The mother of the minor children, i.e., the wife of the appellant/petitioner died in the year 2004. Since then, the custody of the two minor children is with the Respondent, who is their maternal grandfather. After the death of their mother, a settlement was worked out and certain properties were gifted to the minor children. There are allegations made to the effect that the respondent/maternal maternal grand-father had utilized the proceeds of the lands, allotted to the minor children, and therefore the custody of the children may be returned back to the petitioner/father.
3. The above said allegations are countered by the Respondent/ maternal grandfather of the children, making similar allegations against the petitioner/father. It is alleged that the main intention of the petitioner is to get back the settled properties under the guise of the custody of the minor children.
4. During the course of enquiry, the trial Court examined the petitioner and respondent, their supporting witnesses, PWs.2 & 3, and RWs.2 & 3 respectively, and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on behalf of the petitioner.
5. After having perused the entire material on record, by the impugned order the learned District Judge rejected the appeal and appointed the Respondent/maternal grandfather as guardian for the person and property of the minor children and directed to manage the petition schedule property for the benefit of the minor children during their minority and shall maintain proper accounts for the income being derived from it.
6. We have perused the entire material on record and the impugned order. The trial Court has rightly concluded that the well being of the minor children is safer with the Respondent than the petitioner/father. The reasons given by the learned District Judge are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the interview, which the learned District Judge had with the minor children. It is also clear that the children are in the custody of their grandfather, ever since the date of death of their mother. At present, the minor children are sufficiently grown up and are aged about 17 years and 16 years respectively. At this stage, in our opinion, it may not be proper to disturb the custody of the children from their maternal grandfather/Respondent. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned District Judge, which are well considered and based on proper appreciation of the material on record. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
G. Chandraiah, J.
M.S.K. Jaiswal,J.
Dt.16.10.2014
Kv
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL C.M.A. No. 7 of 2008 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal) Dated: 16.10.2014
Kv