C.M.A. No. 88 of 2017. Case: P. Malla Reddy and Ors. Vs L. Srinivas Reddy. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Case NumberC.M.A. No. 88 of 2017
JudgesSuresh Kait and U. Durga Prasad Rao, JJ.
IssueGuardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 25; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 304A
Judgement DateFebruary 09, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)


Suresh Kait, J.

  1. Vide the present appeal, the present appellants seek direction thereby to set aside the decree and order in GWOP No. 724 of 2013 dated 27.01.2017 passed by the XV Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally, at Miyapur.

  2. The appellants are maternal grand parents of the minor girl-L. Sanvi Reddy, aged about 6 years.

  3. The respondent, who is the father of said minor girl, filed a petition under Sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint him as natural guardian of the minor child and consequently, direct the appellants herein to handover the child to the respondent.

  4. The respondent averred in his petition that he married with the daughter of the appellants herein on 27.05.2010. The marriage was registered at Sub-Registrar office, Madira on 24.06.2010. Later, they lived happily and a girl by name L. Sanvi Reddy was born on 07.03.2011. On 10.02.2013, the respondent admitted his wife in Nest Hospital for second delivery. On 11.02.2013, she gave birth to a son but due to the negligence of doctors, the wife of respondent and son died immediately. The respondent made a complaint in Kukatpally Police Station against the doctors. Consequently, the police registered a case against the doctors for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A of I.P.C.

  5. It is further stated in the said petition that when the respondent was planning to perform the cremation in his native place, the appellants had taken away the dead body of his wife forcibly to Karimnagar and completed the cremation without the consent of respondent. The appellants had also taken away the daughter of the respondent. Even to perform pedda karma, they had not attended and did not send his daughter. The appellants, who are grand parents of the minor child, are old aged persons of 75 and 70 years and they are not in a position to look after the child. The mother of the respondent was hale and healthy, as she was staying with the respondent and in the absence of the respondent, she would look after the child. The respondent being father is a natural guardian and hence, for the welfare of the child, it is always necessary for the child to stay along with the respondent. After enquiry, the trial Court allowed the petition. Hence the CMA.

  6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the Court below failed to appreciate the arguments put-forth by them and did not consider the decision in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT