Skip to content


Gummalapudi Kalidas Vs. Attaluri Subbamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad29
AppellantGummalapudi Kalidas
RespondentAttaluri Subbamma
Excerpt:
parent and child - custody of children--immorality. - - 3. it has been held that it is the duty of the court to satisfy itself not only that it is better for the children, but essential to their safety or to their welfare in some very serious and important respect, that the father's rights should be superseded or interfered with, before it deprives the father of those rights--re goldsworthy l. , 83. 4. in this case the condition is not satisfied, and we must reverse the judge's order and declare the father entitled to the custody of his children. 5. the respondent can, of course, apply again if the children are not well treated......we are unable to say that this circumstance alone would justify a court in refusing him the custody of his children.3. it has been held that it is the duty of the court to satisfy itself not only that it is better for the children, but essential to their safety or to their welfare in some very serious and important respect, that the father's rights should be superseded or interfered with, before it deprives the father of those rights--re goldsworthy l.r. 2. q. b. d., 83.4. in this case the condition is not satisfied, and we must reverse the judge's order and declare the father entitled to the custody of his children.5. the respondent can, of course, apply again if the children are not well treated.
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The immorality imputed to the petitioner is that he keeps a concubine in his house and has had a family by her. It appears from the age of the concubine's children that this intercourse commenced before the marriage of which the legitimate children are the issue.

2. Looking to the caste (Goldsmith, probably Sudra) to which the parties belong, we are unable to say that this circumstance alone would justify a Court in refusing him the custody of his children.

3. It has been held that it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself not only that it is better for the children, but essential to their safety or to their welfare in some very serious and important respect, that the father's rights should be superseded or interfered with, before it deprives the father of those rights--Re Goldsworthy L.R. 2. Q. B. D., 83.

4. In this case the condition is not satisfied, and we must reverse the Judge's order and declare the father entitled to the custody of his children.

5. The respondent can, of course, apply again if the children are not well treated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //