Judgment : 1. The appellant / petitioner has preferred the present appeal against the Order and decreetal order dated 03.07.2008, made in G.W.O.P.No.204 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows :– The appellant herein had filed G.W.O.P.No.204 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu, against the respondents herein stating that he had married the respondents' daughter Vijayalakshmi on 26.02.2001, as per Hindu rites and customs, at G.R.K. Thirumana Mahal, No.27, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai–87. Out of the wedlock, his wife gave birth to a male child on 10.01.2004. After the birth of the child, his wife had not developed a cordial relationship with him and often picked up quarrels with him. His wife was so adamant and she committed suicide at the matrimonial house. At the time of the suicide, he had gone to the polling booth for casting his vote. The incident passed to the respondents herein. However, the first respondent had made a criminal complaint against him and then he had been arrested by the Police and taking advantage of the police custody, the child has been taken by the respondents herein. 3. The petitioner further submits that he is a software engineer and he is the biological father and natural guardian of the minor child, as such he is entitled to have the child from the respondents. Hence, the above petition had been filed for child custody. 4. The respondents had filed a counter statement and resisted the petition. The respondents had stated that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and their daughter namely Vijayalakshmi on 26.02.2001 as per Hindu customs and rites and the entire marriage expenses meted out by them. The respondents further stated that they had provided 37 Soverigns of gold jewellery. After the marriage, their daughter gave birth to a male child namely K.V. Avinash. The petitioner's parents had harassed their daughter on a regular basis for demanding more dowry. Further, the petitioner's sister and his brother-in-law came to their house and abused their daughter without any valid reason. 5. On 10.05.2004, their daughter telephoned to the respondents stating that the petitioner had exercised his franchise in the Lok Shaba General Election. The petitioner's parents had harassed their daughter on a regular basis for demanding more dowry. Further, the petitioner's sister and his brother-in-law came to their house and abused their daughter without any valid reason. 5. On 10.05.2004, their daughter telephoned to the respondents stating that the petitioner had exercised his franchise in the Lok Shaba General Election. On the same day, at about 02.30 p.m., the tenant of the same house had telephoned to them that their daughter committed suicide and immediately they rushed to the petitioner's house, wherein the petitioner was watching TV and told them that their daughter committed suicide. The Police registered a case against the petitioner. After the postmortem of their daughter, they collected the body and also took the child. Subsequently the case had been tried by the District Court, Chengalpet. The child is under their care and custody. The petitioner never bestowed any love and affection towards the child. Therefore, the respondents prays to dismiss the said petition. 6. On the side of the petitioner, he was examined as P.W.1 and he had marked five documents as Exs.P1 to P5 namely marriage invitation, birth certificate, criminal court Judgment, payslip and cancelled tickets. On the side of the respondents, the first respondent was examined as R.W.1 and eight documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R8 namely immunization records, selection card of the child, admission letter for the child, achievement record of the child, school fees receipt, matrimonial advertisement in Dinamalar and booklet of State Sekizhar Education Cultural Academy, Chennai. 7. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, had dismissed the child custody petition on 03.07.2008. Against the said order of dismissal, the above appeal has been filed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the learned Judge has failed to consider that the appellant is the biological father of the minor child and he is an engineer by qualification and he is a capable person to provide good education, good food, quality dress and good accommodation for the child. Further, he and his family members would take proper care of the child's welfare. Further, he and his family members would take proper care of the child's welfare. The appellant had adduced evidence before the Trial Court stating that he is not for second marriage and he is always remembering his wife and showing love and affection and also taking proper care over his child as such the appellant has shown paramount importance to the child's welfare and further career, the same was not considered by the Trial Court. The criminal case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., i.e., suspicious death of his wife. 9. The appellant had been discharged from the criminal case after a full-fledged trial. Immediately, after registering the criminal case, the appellant had been remanded into judicial custody for a period of 26 days. Taking advantage of this situation, the respondents took the child and was keeping him under their custody, which is not proper since the appellant is a dutiful father to the minor child and he is showing love and affection towards the child. Further, he is a financially sound person and his education on a high scale and his family members being very interested to bring up the child to a high position. The appellant's family atmosphere is highly cultured, civilized and educated. Therefore, if the child is to be handed over to the appellant, then the minor child's future is ensured. The appellant sofar not remarried and content to remain a widower. Hence, the learned counsel expects the Court to set aside the order and decreetal order and to hand over the child to the appellant herein. 10. The very competent counsel for the respondents argued that the child is under the custody of the respondents from the month of May 2004. Further, the child is studying at a reputed school. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents have had their only daughter the deceased Vijayalakshmi, after her death there is no legal heir for them. Their daughter Vijayalakshmi had committed suicide on 10.05.2004 due to ill treatment, cruelty and dowry demands meted out by the appellant herein and his family members. Therefore, a criminal case has been registered against him under Sections 498(A) and 306 I.P.C. However, the appellant had been discharged from the criminal case, but he and his family members were the sole cause for the drastic death of the daughter Vijayalakshmi. 11. Therefore, a criminal case has been registered against him under Sections 498(A) and 306 I.P.C. However, the appellant had been discharged from the criminal case, but he and his family members were the sole cause for the drastic death of the daughter Vijayalakshmi. 11. The very competent counsel further submits that the respondents are providing good education to the minor child besides good nutritious food, rich dress, good accommodation and most of all taking care of the minor around the clock. Therefore, the child, who is now in a comfortable position, good atmosphere and happy mood with the respondents. Under the circumstances, the child should not be dislodged and placed in an unknown environment, otherwise the child's mind and welfare could be disturbed and made a dilemma. The very competent counsel stated that the appellant gave an advertisement in a newspaper on 09.06.2006 and 24.12.2006 and sought a suitable bride for his second marriage, further hie is now a middle age man of 35 years. The appellant had never bothered about the minor child. The respondents lost their only daughter and now they are getting some peace by keeping the grandchild under their custody and comfort and in doing so get some mental peace and succour. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has no negative point to have his own child. Further, as per the Hindu Succession Act, he is the competent person to keep his child under his care and custody. Therefore, the appellant is a qualified and suitable person to have his biological child under his custody. 13. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on scrutinizing Judgment of the Trial Court, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusion arrived at regarding dismissal of the child custody petition. This Court's further view that the respondents' daughter was indeed an unnatural death and which happened at the matrimonial house. Therefore, the innocent child should not be entrusted with a person of doubtful behaviour, for eventually when the child matures into adulthood he will find out the real cause of his mother's suicide and this could mentally affect him. This Court's further view that the respondents' daughter was indeed an unnatural death and which happened at the matrimonial house. Therefore, the innocent child should not be entrusted with a person of doubtful behaviour, for eventually when the child matures into adulthood he will find out the real cause of his mother's suicide and this could mentally affect him. Further, the minor child is under the custody of the respondents for about 9 years and also studying at a reputed school, hence this Court does not find any less service on the part of the respondents. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal and not disturb the present position of the minor. Hence, the Trial Court's Judgment is confirmed. 14. However, this Court is not inclined to curtail the relationship of the appellant with his minor son K.V.Avinash. Therefore, this Court permits the appellant with visiting rights, hence the appellant is at liberty to see his minor son K.V. Avinash on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m., to 12.00 noon at the respondents' residence or a common place agreeable to both parties. 15. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Order and decreetal order dated 03.07.2008, made in G.W.O.P.No.204 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu are confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.