Mary Vanitha v. Babu Royan — 1991 DIGILAW 503 (MAD)

Judgment :- The petitioner in this petition is the mother of the two minors, viz., 1. Merlin Diana and 2. Maria Roshan and the wife of the respondent, Babu Royan. She filed this petition under Secs.7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for appointing herself as guardian of the two minors aged about 5 years and 3 years respectively and direct entrustment of custody of the two minors to her from the respondent. 2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is employed as Administrative Manager, Resorts International Private Limited, Century Plaza, Mount Road, Madras-18 and respondent who was employed as Manager in Sakthi Finance, Shastri Nagar, Madras now working in the said company at their Coimbatore branch on transfer. He is working the said company for the last few months. 3. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place on 23.1.1984 at Coimbatore and they are governed by the Special Marriage Act, being Christians. The two children abovenamed were born on 17.8.1985 and 18.1.1988 respectively. They were residing ordinarily with their parents till recently at No.43, K.M.N.Street, Mandavellipakkam, Madras 28. A dispute has arisen between parties and now the present petition is filed as above for appointing the petitioner as the guardian and for entrustment of the two children. It is the case of the petitioner that the children are too young, being tender age therefore they should be only in the custody of their mother and that the paramount of the children demand that their custody should only be with the petitioner. The petitioner getting a monthly income of Rs.3,000 by way of salary and hence she would be able maintain the children properly and that she is the fit and proper person to be appointed guardian of the children.According to the petitioner, the respondent drove her out house forcibly and taken her to Palani and forcibly obtained her signature on a stamped paper without disclosing the contents. The petitioner also issued notice respondent in the first week of April, 1991 through her counsel. In the said notice, counsel has stated thus: “My client states that whatever be the differences that you may have with her, you ignore the paramount welfare of the children. My client, therefore requests you gracious enough to allow the children to be with her. My client is fully aware that her children need also the father. In the said notice, counsel has stated thus: “My client states that whatever be the differences that you may have with her, you ignore the paramount welfare of the children. My client, therefore requests you gracious enough to allow the children to be with her. My client is fully aware that her children need also the father. You are always at liberty to have the access for the children all through the day. My client states that in due course of time, you will certainly realise that you done greater harm to your children than to her by your unwanted acts. My client states you should independently bestow your thoughts, on the welfare of your children, keep interest as paramount consideration and arrange to sort out your difference with her. client is ready and willing to meet you at any common place for discussion. My client that if matters are allowed to drift further, it will only lead to unnecessary litigation which not be beneficial to any of you. My client should not be driven to the necessity of moving Court for custody of her children or have access. My client has been informed which hopes to be false that you intend leaving Madras with the children just to prevent her having access or custody of the children. It is needless to state that it will be against interest and welfare of the children. The school in which the first child is studying in Matriculation School, one of the foremost in the State of Tamil Nadu. My client is of the that the children should have education at Madras.” According to the petitioner, the respondent had forcibly removed the children from and taken them to Coimbatore, inspite of the notice given by the petitioner. According petitioner, the respondent is not the fit and proper person to bring up the children and the petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain herself as well as to look after children in good comfort and to given them healthy good life and a good education. It is also stated by the petitioner that she has rented out a house close to Matriculation School for the advantage of her first daughter Merlyn Diana and that since minors are in their tender age, they should not be separated from their mother and other person would be considered as a substitute for mother. It is also stated by the petitioner that she has rented out a house close to Matriculation School for the advantage of her first daughter Merlyn Diana and that since minors are in their tender age, they should not be separated from their mother and other person would be considered as a substitute for mother. The respondent, as a can have access to the children at any time. This is the petitioner’s case. 4. This petition was resisted by the respondent. It is stated in the counter statement, 19th June, 1991 filed in the main petition that the petitioner had forfeited her right to guardian of the children and for their custody and that the petitioner had abandoned children for the sake, of cheap pleasure of living in adultery with one Mr.Ignatius, none other than the respondent’s brother-in-law and that the petitioner has been living adultery since end of March, 1991 and that therefore, she is unfit to be given the onerous of guardianship. The respondent has denied the other averments made in the petition. According to the respondent, the petitioner alone took a decision to abandon marital home, husband and children for the sake of her immoral life. In regard contention of the petitioner about the signing of the Muchalica, the respondent has that the petitioner has voluntarily executed a Panchayat Muchalica, admitting her adulterous life with Mr.Ignatius and agreed that the custody of the minor children should be with respondent. The respondent has also denied that the transfer to Coimbatore from was sought to prevent the petitioner from seeing the children. Both the children have admitted in School in Coimbatore. It is also denied that the petitioner is attached minor children or that she has been looking to the welfare of the children. On the contrary, the petitioner has been harsh and ill-treated them and she rarely looked after them. petitioner who has abandoned her matrimonial home and leading an immoral life should be allowed to go anywhere near the children and hence, the petitioner is not entitled custody of the children. 5. The respondent has filed a petition, I.D.O.P.No.123 of 1991 on 5.6.1991 before District Judge, Coimbatore for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent and the same is pending. 6. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by both parties. 5. The respondent has filed a petition, I.D.O.P.No.123 of 1991 on 5.6.1991 before District Judge, Coimbatore for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent and the same is pending. 6. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by both parties. Learned counsel for sides argued the matter on the basis of the pleadings raised by them in their respective petition and counter statement. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner/mother the children is entitled to be appointed as guardian of the two children and for entrustment their custody from the respondent. I have heard Mr.R.Sundararajan, learned appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Alagarsamy learned counsel appearing for respondent. Before dealing with the main case, it is also to be noticed that petitioner/mother was permitted to see her children at the residence of the respondent prior intimation and she was also permitted to spend sometime with them on Saturdays Sundays, wherever the children are available in the custody of the respondent. This was passed by this Court on 30.4.1991 in Application No.2688 of 1991. It is represented Mr.Sundararajan that though permission was granted by this Court to the petitioner/mother to see the children, the mother was unable to see them since she was not able to copy of the order passed by this Court in Application No.2688 of 1991, dated 30.4.1991. Even before the matter was taken up for final hearing, I have suggested a compromise between parties taking into consideration of the paramount welfare and interest of the minor children and taking into consideration of the young age of the petitioner, who about 29 years and the respondent, who is aged about 34 years. Though many suggestions were made by this Court, none of them was acceptable to the respondent, was very adamant in his attitude. The only allegation made by the respondent against petitioner is that she is living in adultery with one Mr.Ignatius, the brother-in- respondent. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is unfit to custody of the children or to be appointed as guardian of the two minor children, taking consideration of the welfare of the minor children. In fact, as suggested by this petitioner was even ready and willing to resign her job and live with the respondent children at Madraswhere she has already secured admission for both children in school. In fact, as suggested by this petitioner was even ready and willing to resign her job and live with the respondent children at Madraswhere she has already secured admission for both children in school. an admitted fact that the first child was studying in the same Rosary Matriculation School, Santhome, Madras has also secured admission for the second boy child in the said School, which is not by the respondent. In fact, as admitted by the respondent, the respondent shifted his of residence from Madras only in the early May, 1991 and is now living at No.1634,Tiruchy Road, Coimba-tore-18, consequent upon his transfer to Coimba stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the children have been admitted School at Coimbatore. 8. As stated above, this original petition was presented in this Court on 25.4.1991 admitted by this Court on 29.4.1991 and an interim order permitting the mother children was passed by this Court on 30.4.1991 in Application No.2688 of 1991. At any the respondent had knowledge about the pendency of these proceedings from the sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner, dated 315.1991, informing him to before this court on 10.6.1991. When the respondent had knowledge about the pendency the proceedings in this Court on 31.5.1991 itself, he ought not to have admitted the in the School at Coimbatore, without the permission of this Court. As stated at the first child was studying in Rosary Matriculation School" at Madras and the petitioner also secured admission for the second boy child in the same school. As stated above, only contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner leading an immoral life and hence she is not the fit and proper person to be appointed guardian of the two minor children. I may straightaway reject the said contention since according to the respondent, the petition, I.D.O.P.No.l23 of 1991 filed by him on before the District Judge, Coimbatore for dissolution of the marriage between the and the respondent on the basis of the said allegation is still pending. It is settled mere allegation is not Proof. The respondent will have to establish his case, as alleged counter affidavit before the District Court, Coimbatore. It is settled mere allegation is not Proof. The respondent will have to establish his case, as alleged counter affidavit before the District Court, Coimbatore. Unless and otherwise allegation is proved and a decree for divorce is granted on that basis, it is not open respondent to allege that the petitioner is not entitled to have the custody of the children. It is also seen from the records that the above matrimonial original petition filed before the District Court after the receipt of the letter on 31.5.1991 from the counsel the petitioner in regard to the pendency of the Original Petition No.252 of 1991 in this In my opinion, the matrimonial original petition has been filed in the District Coimbatore only after the filing of the present original petition in this Court and as prevent the petitioner from having the custody of the two minor children and also guardian of the children. It is also an admitted fact by the respondent in his counter two minor children are of tender age. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, application No.2688 of 1991 in O.P.No.252 of 1991, the respondent in paragraph 3 categorically admitted that the children are of tender and impressionable age. matrimonial original petition is admittedly pending before the District Court, Coimbatore, both parties were not permitted to argue anything on the question of the petitioner adultery with some third party. As on date, it is only an allegation, yet to be proved established by the respondent, which will not in my opinion disable the petitioner from the guardian of the two minor children. 9. Mr.R.Sundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support contentions cited the following decisions: 1.Rosy Jacob v. Jacob, (1974)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 31: (1974)2 S.C.J. 129: (1973)1 S.C.C. A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2090; 2. Kauser Begam v. M.Asrajj Ali Khan, (1991) T.N.L.J. 63; 3. Suresh Babu v. Madhu, (1984)1 M.L.J. 381 : A.I.R. 1984 Mad. 186; 4. Thirty Hoshine Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka; (1982)2 S.C.C. 544 : A.I.R.S.C. 1276; 5. V.V.Narasaiah v. C.P.Raju, (1971)2 An.W.R. 190: A.1.R. 1971 A.P. 134; 6. Manju Tiwari v. Rajendra Tiwari, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1156; and 7. Pushpa Singh v. Singh, 1990 S.C.C. (Supp.) 53. Per contra, Mr.Alagarsamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. Velan v. Muthu, (1990)2 M.L.J. 417 ; 2. Amrik Rai v. Sat Pal, A.I.R. 1983 Pun. Manju Tiwari v. Rajendra Tiwari, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1156; and 7. Pushpa Singh v. Singh, 1990 S.C.C. (Supp.) 53. Per contra, Mr.Alagarsamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. Velan v. Muthu, (1990)2 M.L.J. 417 ; 2. Amrik Rai v. Sat Pal, A.I.R. 1983 Pun. & Hari. 301; 3. Snehlata v. Mahendra, A.I.R. 1979 Raj. 29; 4. a passage in Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition (para 534 in page 299) and 5. v. Ayyappan, (1988)2 D.M.C. 140. 10. It is seen from the various judgments referred to above that in the matter of ordering custody of the minor children, the paramount consideration to be borne in mind interest and welfare of the minor children. Therefore, there is no need for me to refer decisions cited by both parties in detail. Having regard to the settled legal principles as be gleaned it is necessary for me to consider whether the interest of the minors would served better by entrusting the custody to the petitioner or to the respondent and that to protect and take care of the interest and welfare of the minor children. With principles in mind, it is necessary for me to refer to the respective case of the parties. 11. It is an admitted case by both parties that both the minors are of tender age. mother’s position is regarded as of much more importance in modern times than it was former days, when a wife was regarded as little more than the chattel of her husband. view of society in India as to the position of women may not have advanced so far or so as in England, but at the same time, the right of the mother to the custody of her children is undoubtedly recognised in this country. However, the paramount consideration the interest of the child rather than the rights of the parents. Human nature is much same all the world over, and in my opinion, if the mother is a suitable person to take of the child, it is quite impossible to find any adequate substitute for her for the custody child of tender years. Mr.Sundararajan, next cited a decision reported in Thirty Hoshine Dolikuka’s case, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1276, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "The principles of law in relation to the custody of a minor appear to be well established. Mr.Sundararajan, next cited a decision reported in Thirty Hoshine Dolikuka’s case, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1276, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "The principles of law in relation to the custody of a minor appear to be well established. well settled that any matter concerning a minor, has to be considered and decided only the. point of view of the welfare and interest of the minor. In dealing with a matter concerning a minor, the Court has a special responsibility and it is the duty of the Court consider the welfare of the minor and to protect the minor’s interest. In considering question of custody of a minor, the Court has to be guided by the only consideration of welfare of the minor." 12. Applying the above test on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the best to serve the welfare and interest of the minors, who are aged about 5 years and 3 years respectively would be to remove the child from the custody of the father. The mother had steady income, out of which she was in a position to meet all the expenses of her children. am able to see that it is her desire and wanted her daughter and son to lead a healthy normal life essential for their better growth and development. The girl now aged about years was reaching an age when she would need the guidance of her mother. Therefore custody of the girl and the boy should be given to the mother. In my opinion, it will erroneous to refuse the custody of the daughter and son to the mother mainly on the ground that the mother was employed in a company, which post she is ready and witting to quit the interest of the minors. The decision reported in V.V.Narasaiah v. C.P.Raju, (1971)2 An.W.R. 190: A.I.R. 1971 A.P. 134, was next cited by Mr.Sundararajan, wherein it was that the father no doubt has a legal right but that right is always subservient to the welfare of the minor. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court further held that ‘ If the Court finds that it will not be in the interest of the minor or conducive to its welfare to entrust the custody of the father, the mere fact that the father has a legal right to the guardianship of the minor, is of no consequence. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court further held that ‘ If the Court finds that it will not be in the interest of the minor or conducive to its welfare to entrust the custody of the father, the mere fact that the father has a legal right to the guardianship of the minor, is of no consequence. In the said decision, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court further held that: "There are cases which show that inspite of the provisions of Sec.19(h) of the Act, welfare the minor is prime consideration and the paramount right of the father is subordinate to has been so held by the Madras High Court in Soora Reddi v. Chenna Reddi, A.I.R. 1950 Mad. 306, the learned Judges after considering A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 363, have stated: "It is a proposition so well known and established that it cannot be questioned at all tha welfare of the minor is the prime consideration in such matters and even the para mount right of the father as the natural guard ian should be subordinate to the welfare of minor." Thus, in my view the father’s right to the custody of his minor child was not absolute; nor in indefeasible in law; it is circumscribed by the consideration of the beneficial welfare minor. Pushpa Singh’s case, 1990 S.C.C. (Supp.) 53 and Manju Tiwari’s Case, A.I.R. S.C. 1156, have also been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sundararajan. In the former case, the Supreme Court held thus: “We are firmly of the view that the paramount interest of the child lies in giving his to the mother. The age of the child is admittedly less than five years. The child absolutely needs affection of his mother for which there is no adequate substitute.” In the latter case the Supreme Court held as follows: “We are, however, satisfied having regard to the circumstances of the case and the history that the custody of the child should be immediately given to the mother as the is less than five years old. The mother will, therefore, have the custody of the child. however be open to the father, that is, respondent No.1 to apply for the custody of the in appropriate guardianship proceedings. The mother will, therefore, have the custody of the child. however be open to the father, that is, respondent No.1 to apply for the custody of the in appropriate guardianship proceedings. The respondent No.l, however, will be entitled visit the residence of the petitioner and be with the child during week-ends (on Saturdays and Sundays)” 13. As stated in the above paragraphs, there are mutual allegations which have to be into and decided by a Court of law in appropriate proceedings. The case filed by the for divorce is also pending and the husband has to establish his case in the said proceedings and that Court will have also to go into the said allegations and decide the same on merits. 14. Strong reliance was placed by Mr.Alagarsamy on my decision reported in Velan v. (1990)2 M.L.J. 417 . The petitioner in that case was the father, who is the natural guardian his minor child. The custody of the child was given to the father after taking consideration of all the relevant factors and also the interest of the infant. In the said the child was left in the custody of the petitioner’s wife’s relatives. The contest for was between the father of the child on the one side and the child’s mother’s sister maternal grand parents on the other side, considering the facts and circumstances case this Court has held that the mere fact that the maternal grandparents are attached to the minor, is not a ground to negative the claim of the petitioner viz., of the child and in any event, such custody cannot have any preference to the legitimate claim of the natural father. Citing the above case, Mr.Alagarsamy, learned counsel respondent contended that the respondent and his parents are well placed in life and they would look after the child in a better and more affluent circumstances. Rejecting similar contentions, this Court held that more affluent circumstances of the grandparents not a relevant factor that should weigh with the Court to deny the legitimate parental the father to the guardianship and custody over his minor child. But, in the present case fight is between the father and mother of the minor children and it is for me to whether the welfare of the children will be protected, if they are entrusted to the custody the father or the mother. But, in the present case fight is between the father and mother of the minor children and it is for me to whether the welfare of the children will be protected, if they are entrusted to the custody the father or the mother. Hence, in my view, the decision reported in Velan’s case, M.L.J. 417, can Be distinguished on facts and the same is not applicable to the facts present case. Amrik Rai v. Sat Pal, A.I.R. 1983 Pun. & Hari. 301, relied on by Mr. Alagarsamy can also be distinguished on facts. In the said case, the mother of the two minor died of severe burn injuries. The father of the children thereafter was prosecuted for of his wife and then acquitted. Immediately after his acquittal, the father, who was placed socially and financially filed an application for the custody of the children. Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the maternal uncle and his members being illiterate, the minors would be more happy and comfortable in the custody the father, who had the capacity, means and resources to help them in carving out future for themselves. 15. While considering the question of welfare of the minors ’ the right of the father recognised by law has to be kept in mind and given its due weight, but the primary paramount consideration undoubtedly remains to be the welfare of the minors. expression ‘welfare of the minors’ though has not been defined, yet undoubtedly has given a very wide meaning. It ought not to be measured in money only or by comfort alone. It has many facets, such as financial, educational, physical, moral religious welfare. In the instant case, the mother/petitioner is getting a decent income Rs.3,000 per month by way of salary, She is well educated and she is physically and mentally all right to bring up the children. Further, she is also affectionate towards her children. Though some allegations been made about her character, as stated earlier they have to be proved by the other before the appropriate forum. At any rate, that cannot be a ground at this stage denying “the custody of the two minor children to the mother/petitioner. The decision cited the Respondent in Snehlata’s case, A.I.R. 1979 Raj. Though some allegations been made about her character, as stated earlier they have to be proved by the other before the appropriate forum. At any rate, that cannot be a ground at this stage denying “the custody of the two minor children to the mother/petitioner. The decision cited the Respondent in Snehlata’s case, A.I.R. 1979 Raj. 29, it is said that in the appointment declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a Court, the welfare of the shall be the paramount consideration. The other decision reported in Chakki’s case, (1988)2 D.M.C. 140, is also to the same effect. As mentioned above, a number of decisions referred to me in this context of conflicting claims between mother and father for custody and guardianship of minor children. The right of the natural guardian to have custody minor, unless he or she is disqualified or it is found that the welfare of the child recognition of the other; the other point of view emphasises, that the legal rights natural guardian may only be secondary consideration, the principal factor being the and welfare of the child. A passage in Halsbury’ s Laws of England (IV Edition) (Paras 534 -228) was also relied on by Mr.Alagarsamy, which is reproduced herein below: “There is no rule of law that a child of tender years should remain with his mother question of whether it is better for a child to be with his mother or his father must upon the particular circumstances of the case and upon the view which the Court takes characters and qualities of the respective parents. “Thus, it is seen from the various judgments referred to above that in the matter of custody of the minor children, the paramount consideration that is to be borne in mind welfare and interest of the minor children. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner had abandoned her matrimonial home and voluntarily executed a Panchayat Muchalica, admitting her adulterous life with one Mr.Ignatius and agreed that the custody of the children with the respondent herein. Except the mere statement made in the statement of the respondent nothing was placed before this court to substantiate the allegation. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner had abandoned her matrimonial home and voluntarily executed a Panchayat Muchalica, admitting her adulterous life with one Mr.Ignatius and agreed that the custody of the children with the respondent herein. Except the mere statement made in the statement of the respondent nothing was placed before this court to substantiate the allegation. Of course, the petitioner has specifically denied the execution of such a Muchalica and that it was only the respondent, who had driven her out of the house and forcibly her to Palani and obtained, her signatures on a typed stamped paper, without disclosing contents and that the petitioner was made to sign the paper at knife point. In the absence any material placed before this Court, I am not in a position to believe the said version respondent. 16. In Allen v. Allen, (1948)2 All E.R. 413, the trial Court gave custody of a child years to the father as against the mother, who was found guilty of adultery. In the Appeal, it was held that it would not be right to snatch this female child of eight from mother and force to make a new start with her father and step mother. The Court also care and control to the mother. In my view so long as child is young enough to need to day care of his or her mother, it is better to leave the child with the mother unless is entirely unsuitable person. It seems to me that the court from the beginning difficulty in propounding this principle and it has been accorded statutory recognition Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Proviso to Sec.6(a) provides ‘ the custody minor who has completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. law has always recognised this principle as a rule of law. Under the Hanafi law, custody boy upto the age of seven and of girl upto the age of puberty rests with the mother. Punjab Chief Court in 1917 said that a child of tender years should be committed custody of the mother even if she had remarried. The Bombay High Court in Tara Mohan Lal, A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 405, said that a boy of seven years would be much better living with his mother than with his father. Beaumont, C.J., in Saraswati-bai v. Sripad, 1941 Bom. The Bombay High Court in Tara Mohan Lal, A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 405, said that a boy of seven years would be much better living with his mother than with his father. Beaumont, C.J., in Saraswati-bai v. Sripad, 1941 Bom. 103, said: “.....If mother is a suitable person to take charge of the child it is quite impossible to adequate substitute for her for the custody of a child of tender years. “Das, J. of High Court in In re. Kamal Rudra, I.L.R. (1949)2 Cal. 374, said: “I have no doubt in my mind that the mother ’ s lap is God’s own cradle for a child of this and that as between father and mother, other thing equal, a child of such tender age remain with mother." Our High Court in Kandiappa v. Valliammal, A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 608, held that ‘it is impossible to find out an adequate substitute for the custody of a child of tender years, whose interest should be the paramount consideration. In Sarnual v. Stella, A.I.R. 1955 Mad, 451: Crl.L.J. 192, our High Court had again reaffirmed its view by saying that since it is mother who would have the interest of the minor most at heart, the tender years of the needing the care, protection and guidance of the most interested persons viz., the mother, who has come to be preferred to others. The Court gave custody of a female child of thirteen who was delicate in health to the mother. Likewise, in Bhola Nath v. Sharda Devi, A.I.R. 1954 Pat. 489, the Patna High court held that the affection, love and sympathy which children require cannot be given by the father in the same measure as can be given by mother, especially when the child is aged only about two years or little more. 17. Thus on an anxious consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the mother alone should be given the custody of the two minor children, taking into account the welfare of the minor children, which is the only consideration in matters like this. 17. Thus on an anxious consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the mother alone should be given the custody of the two minor children, taking into account the welfare of the minor children, which is the only consideration in matters like this. As stated in the earlier paragraph of this order, mother/petitioner has already secured admission in Rosary Matriculation School for the and in Dominic Savio for the boy and hence, the respondent is directed to entrust custody of the two minor children to the mother/petitioner on or before 26th July, 1991 enable her to admit the children in the said School. However, it is made very clear that father (respondent herein) as a natural guardian of the children is always at liberty to see children in the School by intimating the school authorities well in advance or at the residence of the petitioner at any time. 18. This original petition is ordered as prayed for. No costs. Petition allowed.