THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 663 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 06.07.2010 passed in O.P. No. 229 of 2005 by the District Judge, Anantapur, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant herein, praying the Court below to direct the respondent to produce his minor children before the Court and to pass necessary orders enabling the appellant to have the custody of the minor children. According to the appellant, he married the daughter of the respondent, namely A. Jahnavi, in the month of September, 1994. Out of the wedlock, two children were born to them, a boy child namely Rohit on 22.07.1995 and a girl child namely Divya on 02.09.1999. While so, the wife of the appellant, who was working at Secondary Grade Teacher at Hindupur, died accidentally on 21.06.2002 at Hindupur. After ten days of her death, the respondent, who is the mother-in-law of the appellant, has taken away the two minor children along with her to Bangalore where she is residing. With a view to mitigate the sorrow of the respondent in view of death of her daughter, the appellant allowed the respondent to have the custody of the minor children, but the respondent is not allowing the appellant into her house and not permitting him to see his minor children. The appellant states that the respondent is aged more than 65 years and is suffering with back pain and her husband, who is aged more than 75 years, is bed ridden and is also mentally retarded and hence the couple cannot look after the minor children properly and that he being the natural guardian of the children, is entitled to their custody. He further states that the amounts sent by him through money order, towards maintenance of the children, were refused to be received by the respondent and his requests for the custody of the children were rejected by the respondent, without any justifiable cause. Hence, he filed the present O.P., praying the Court below to grant him the custody of the minor children. The respondent resisted the O.P., by filing counter, denying the allegations made by the appellant and stating that the appellant is guilty of subjecting her daughter Smt. Jahnavi, who is his wife, to harassment and murdering her. When the respondent and her relatives tried to inform the true facts to the police, after the death of her daughter, the appellant pressurized them and assured about the welfare of the minor children, by promising to transfer half share of his property and also all the properties of the deceased daughter of the respondent, in favour of the children. But, he did not keep up his promise and neglected the children and therefore the respondent and another daughter of her, who is working in Canara Bank, fostered the minor children and got them admitted in school. They are under the care and custody of another daughter of the respondent and are being educated at Devanahalli, where she resides. The appellant never bothered to take care of the children and he never visited the children nor provided any amount towards their maintenance. Therefore, the respondent had to file P.L.C. No. 996 of 2003 in Permanent Lok Adalath, Anantapur, but the appellant refused to give the share of the minor children in the properties and also refused to give details of the property and amounts received on the demise of late Smt. Jahnavi, and as such conciliation with respect to amounts lying with Sriram Chits alone could be passed. She, thus, prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the appellant. Before the Court below, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3 and no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced by the respondent. The Court below, having considered the stand of the parties and the evidence available on record, held that the appellant has not filed any proof of his sending money to the minor children and no efforts seem to have been made by him to visit the children at their school and that neither any tuition fee was paid by him nor any clothes or presents were brought by him for the children. It was further held by the Court below that there is no whisper in the evidence of the appellant about the allegations made by the respondent in her counter that the appellant denied the minor children half share in the properties as also the money received on the death of Smt. Jahnavi. Having held so, the Court below dismissed the petition, by the order under appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court directed production of the children before this Court, so as to ascertain their views. Accordingly, the children appeared before this Court today. We had an interaction with them in the chambers. Both the minor children are reluctant to join the company of the appellant, their father. The principles in relation to the custody of minor children are well settled. In determining the question as to who should be given custody of minor children, it is the welfare of the minor children alone, which is the paramount consideration. In the instant case, both the children, who are minors, seem to be not emotionally attached to their father and they are not at all willing to join his company. In the circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view from what has been taken by the Court below and grant custody of the minor children to the appellant. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J 7th April, 2011 IBL