1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 300 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 20 of 2008 Dr.Narasimha Mudlagiri Kamath .. Applicant versus Pushpa Mudlagiri Kamath & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.N.N. Vaishnawa for the applicant. Mr.R.R. Sharma for the respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 19th January 2009 P.C.: . Heard Mr.Vaishnawa learned counsel for the applicant. . Though we have admitted Family Court Appeal no.20 of 2008 filed by the applicant, we are not inclined to consider the prayer for interim 2 relief made in this application. 3. The petitioner’s elder daughter Aditi is more than 23 years of age and his younger daughter Kanchan is about 18 years and we (Marlapalla and Bhosale, JJ) have talked to his daughters on more than one occasion in the presence of the applicant as well as his brother. Both the daughters are not against meeting their father and they have clearly and repeatedly taken a stand that their future interest and welfare is fully secured in the ancestral home of their father. They also stated that the father’s sister and brother are taking their due care and they also have their grandmother to support them. They are not inclined to join their father’s new home as of now, though they do not have any grievance about his second marriage. 4. Having regards to the unambiguous and firm opinion expressed by the daughters, there is no case to grant their custody to the applicant and instead the daughters should be left free to take a decision on their own to join their father. 5. Hence, the application is rejected. 3 (D.G. KARNIK, J) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J)