Karnataka High Court
K.R. Sujatha vs Sri. B.V. Ravikumar on 20 January, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
MFA No. 3683 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3683 OF 2015 (GW)
BETWEEN:
1. K.R. SUJATHA
W/O B.V. RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 781/A
BACKSIDE OF SIDDAGANGA SCHOOL
Digitally
signed by NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE - 577002.
RUPA V
Location: ...APPELLANT
High Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. M.V. REVANASIDDAIAH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR
SON OF B.M. VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
POLICE CONSTABLE
CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION
CHITRADURGA - 577501.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.N. NANJAREDDY , ADV., (ABSENT))
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 47(a) OF G& WC. ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:04.02.2015 PASSED IN
G & WC.NO.3/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S
-2-
MFA No. 3683 of 2015
7 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, FOR CUSTODY OF
MINOR CHILD.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian and
Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short) has been filed against order dated 04.02.2015 passed
by the family court, by which petition filed by the appellant
under Section 7 of the Act seeking custody of minor ward
Sona alias Chiraag has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the marriage between the parties was
solemnized on 27.02.2005 in Davanagere. Out of the
wedlock, a son viz., Sona alias Chiraag was born on
27.04.2006 . However, on account of differences between the
parties, they could not stay together. The appellant filed a
petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure claiming maintenance from the respondent. The
MFA No. 3683 of 2015
respondent filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage,
which has been allowed by the family court.
3. The appellant filed a petition under Section 7 of
the Act on or about 23.01.2014, in which inter alia it was
pleaded that the son is of tender age and requires care and
protection of the mother. It was further pleaded that love
and affection, which the appellant can provide to the minor
child cannot be given by the respondent. Accordingly, a
petition under Section 7 of the Act was filed. The respondent
filed statement of objection in which inter alia it was stated
that appellant has left the company of the respondent
without any justifiable cause. It was averred that son has
been admitted to a reputed school in Chikkajagur and is
student of III standard. It is also pleaded that child is
comfortable in the company of the respondent and he is
taking care of the child.
4. The family court on the basis of pleadings of
parties framed issues and recorded the evidence. The
MFA No. 3683 of 2015
appellant examined herself, whereas, the respondent
examined himself. Both the parties adduced documentary
evidence. The family court by an order dated 04.02.2015 has
dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Hence, this
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the family court erred in rejecting the application filed by the
appellant under Section 7 of the Act and it ought to have
appreciated that the appellant is the mother of the child and
can take proper care of the child. However, it is fairly
admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant is residing with the father for past about 9 years
and the appellant has not filed an application seeking
visitation rights either before the family court or before this
court.
6. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the
record. A person while passing an order as to guardianship,
MFA No. 3683 of 2015
the court has to take into account the welfare of the minor,
which is of paramount consideration. In the instant case,
admittedly, appellant is a house wife and has no source of
income and is dependant on the amount of maintenance
awarded to her for her livelihood. The respondent was
employed as a head constable and has taken voluntary
retirement. The respondent stays with his family. The
appellant herself in her cross examination has admitted that
the family of the respondent is a cultured family.
7. The respondent has taken care of the child and
the child is in the custody of the respondent for past about 9
years. The appellant has admitted in her cross examination
that she has not gone to the school of the child to enquire
about his education. The appellant has also not made any
application either before the family court or before this court
seeking visitation rights. The interest of the minor would be
well served if he is allowed to remain in the custody of his
father.
MFA No. 3683 of 2015
8. The family court on the basis of meticulous
appreciation of evidence on record has held that appellant is
not entitled to custody of the minor son. The aforesaid
finding is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on
record, with which no interference is called for in this
appeal.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
