Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an application against the order of the family companyrt under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code praying for vacation of interim order of injunction passed against him.
64 of 2007 preventing him from interfering with the custody of his children with the respondents.
In the Counter Affidavit accompanying the application filed on 28th of April, 2007 to vacate the interim order of injunction, he denied all averments made in the application filed by the respondents as incorrect and fabricated.
9177 of 2007 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
It is number in dispute that the appellant is the father and natural guardian of the children.
Subsequent to the death of Umme Asma, the mother of two minor children, the appellant again married to one Jawahar Sultana on 25th of March, 2007 who in the pending proceeding had filed an application before the Family Court for her impleadment in the same.
3 and 4 are nearing the age of marriage and would go ahead with their own lives once married.
While respondent number1 is aged about 72 years and is retired and hence is in numberposition to look after his children, respondent number2 is living separately after his marriage respondent number.
The mark sheets produced by the respondents bore forged signatures of the appellant whereas the documents bearing his own signature were number produced.
The photographs produced before the Court were taken when the appellant himself took the respondents on an excursion along with his family in his own car.
In the aforesaid pending proceeding under the Act, an application was filed under Section 12 of the Act read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in short the Code in which interim protection was prayed for of the persons and properties of the minor children and also for an order of injunction restraining the appellant from interfering or disturbing the custody of two children till the disposal of the application filed under Sections 7, 9 and 17 of the Act.
Therefore, by its order dated 11th of June, 2007, the Family Court vacated the ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the custody of the children with the respondents.
Since the appellant had reasons to suspect the bonafide of the respondents, he lodged a companyplaint before the Inspector of Police, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore on 23rd of April, 2007.
A proceeding was initiated on 21st of April, 2007 at the instance of the respondents under Sections 7, 9 and 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 hereinafter referred to as the Act in the Court of the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore which came to be registered as G.W.C.No.64 of 2007.
The case that was made out by the respondents in the affidavit accompanying their application for injunction filed under Section 12 of the Act read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code was a follows On the same day on which the respondents filed the applications for being appointed as guardians and for interim injunction against the appellant, i.e. on 21st of April, 2007, the Family Court disposed of the application under section 12 read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, and passed an ex parte interim order restraining the appellant from interfering with the custody of the two children of the appellant.
Pursuant to a telephonic request made by respondent number3, he dropped his children at their place on 21st of April, 2007.
Hence, the equitable remedy of injunction companyld number be granted to them.
These heavy responsibilities which already lie on the respondent make him unfit as a guardian of his children.
The respondent No.1 is the maternal grandfather of the two minor children of the appellant and respondent Nos.
Aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed a Writ Petition which came to be numbered as W.P. No.
2, 3 and 4 are their maternal aunt and uncles.
1, in accordance with Islamic rites and customs on 31st of March, 1993.
The only motive of the respondents is to gain the property that the appellant had purchased in favour of Umme Asme.
It is alleged that though the respondents had procured the interim order of injunction on 21st of April, 2007 itself, they did number inform either the appellant or the Police authorities until 25th of April, 2007 on which day they produced the companyy of the interim order to the appellant.
Their mother Umme Asma died on 16th of June, 2006.
The respondents who were summoned to the police station gave an undertaking to the effect that the children would be back on 24th of April, 2007.
The appellant married one Umme Asma, daughter of respondent No.
Two children were born out of the wedlock, Athiya Ali, aged about 13 years and Aayan Ali , aged about 5 years.
Further respondent number1 has another son whose wife divorced him on account of harassment for dowry and another daughter who was mentally retarded.
Appellant further alleged that his daughter had been missing classes as she was unduly retained by the respondents, who had numberconcern whatsoever with respect to the same.
On 23rd of April, 2007, he was told that the children had gone to Ooty and would return after a few days.
It is for the vengeance of the appellants refusal to marry respondent number3 who wished to marry him after the death of her sister, that they had filed the application claiming custody and guardianship of the children.
When he went back to companylect them on 22nd of April, 2007, he was informed that they would be back only at night.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th of October, 2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by which the High Court had set aside the order dated 11th of June, 2007 of the Family Court, Bangalore vacating its order of injunction dated 21st of April, 2007 passed against the appellant in G.W.C. No.
The appellant is the father of the minor children in whose respect interim custody and guardianship have been sought for.
