Visitors Counter

mod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_counter
mod_vvisit_counterToday711
mod_vvisit_counterYesterday661

Random Quotes

Parents often talk about the younger generation as if they didn't have anything to do with it. ~Haim Ginott

Polls

Do you think the rules/laws are applied to Fathers more stringently as compared to Mothers?
 

Resources & Useful links

Bookmarks

 
 

Bookmark us With


RedditDel.icio.usGet more widgets at VivoCiti.comDiggGoogleHuggReddot@eShiok!LiveFacebookSlashdotNetscapeTechnoratiStumbleUponSpurlWistsSimpyNewsvineBlinklistFurlFarkBlogmarksYahooSmarkingNetvouzShadowsRawSugarMa.gnoliaPlugIMSquidooco.mmentsBlogMemesFeedMeLinksBlinkBitsTailranklinkaGoGo
Module is designed by http://www.vivociti.com

Certificate of Appreciation

Click to see PDF

Our Friends

SIFF
Mynation Foundation
manushi
CRISP-Petition


YouCMSAndBlog Module Generator Wizard Plugin

AllVideos Reloaded

Karnataka HC sends a child with maternal grandparents, rejects father’s plea for custody PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by P Vasanth Kumar   

BANGALORE: In an interesting case pertaining to the issue of guardianship, the Karnataka high court has sent a six-year old girl child with her maternal grandfather while rejecting the plea put forward by her father seeking for custody.

"Having regard to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, we feel that the custody of the child is safe in the hands of the respondent (grandfather).The child is six years and she is well acquainted with the environment and surrounding circumstances and living happily with the grandparents.So,we do not prefer to interfere at this stage nor there are merits in the appeal" the division bench comprising Justices N K Patil and B V Pinto have observed in their order.

The bench rejected the miscellaneous first appeal(MFA) filed by one V Niranjan, a resident of Bangalore city and the father of the girl.He has filed the appeal under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his daughter. The family court had rejected his petition on the same issue on December 15,2009.

Father's promise Niranjan in his petition has promised that he will give good education to the child and admit her in good school.He also claimed that there are possibilities that his daughter may forget that he was her father.He also stated that even today, his daughter has no name and no suchceremony was held to enable him to participate.Having remarried, he contended that he can look after the child well. Grandpa's take

However, Veerasiddaiah, grandfather of the child claimed that his son-in law never bothered to come when the girl was born, even though it was intimated to him and he looked after her since her birth.

He further contended that the petition was filed by him just to to grab the property, gold ornaments and utensils belonging to his daughter V Veena , who died of cancer. He also promised to the court that he will give good education to his grand daughter.

The family court had given visiting rights to the father to take out the child on Saturdays and return her on Sunday. Niranjan had married Veena in March,2005 in a Kalyana Mantap in the city.They lived happily and the girl was born in August 2006.

 



Related Articles:

Powered By relatedArticle

YouCMSAndBlog Module Generator Wizard Plugin