THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.399 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 12.01.2010, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, dismissing I.A.No.521 of 2009 in G.O.P.No.1382 of 2009 filed under Sections 12 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking to order interim protection or custody of minor daughter, by name, Nishita, of the petitioner and the first respondent. 2. The first respondent-mother, who is a Doctor, obtained divorce from the petitioner-father vide ex parte decree, dated 25.04.2006, in O.P.No.94 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada and also the custody of their minor daughter. The petitioner states that after divorce, the first respondent married the second respondent and she gave birth to a child in December, 2009 and as such, there is no possibility of taking care of the minor daughter by her. Therefore, he filed the above said I.A. for interim custody of the minor daughter. The Court below having considered the material on record, dismissed the same vide order impugned, against which, the petitioner filed the present revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the father is the natural guardian and he remained unmarried though there was divorce between the couple. He further submitted that the first respondent remarried the second respondent and gave birth to a child, this causes detriment to the welfare of the minor daughter. He also submitted that the petitioner is earning more than the first respondent, he got love and affection towards the minor daughter and he would take care her and give better education and therefore, he prays for her interim custody He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KUMAR V. JAHGIRDAR v. CHETHANA RAMATHEERTHA[1] and in LEKHA v. P. ANIL KUMAR[2]. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner never took the welfare of the minor daughter and that as the first respondent is working as Government Doctor, she can join her in the educational institutions, which give good education. She also contended that the minor daughter is willing to live with her and her stepfather. 6. On 23.04.2010, when the matter is taken up for hearing, I interviewed the daughter, who is now aged 10 years, in the chambers. At the time of interview, it was ascertained that she is not willing to live with his father and she would continue to live with his mother, who is looking after her with all love and affection. Therefore, in the interest of the minor daughter and to safeguard her welfare, I am not inclined to give her custody to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:11.06.2010 sj [1] (2004)2 SCC 688 [2] (2006) 13 SCC 555