( 1 ) FAO 716/2002 is directed against the order dated 17th september, 2004 of the Guardian Judge, Delhi, in G-14/2000 whereby the learned Guardian Judge has dismissed the petition of the appellant under section 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as noted by the Guardian Judge are as follows:

". . . . THE petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 according to Hindu customs and Rights on 2. 5. 86 and one son Amit was born from the said wedlock on 12. 10. 88 at Military Hospital, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It is claimed that in the year 1991 the behaviour of the respondent No. 1 towards the petitioner became cruel and the respondent No. 1 wilfully withdraw from the Society of the petitioner and the minor son, and thereafter, filed a petition for divorce before the Hon ble Distt. Judge, gurgaon, Haryana bearing HMA No. 15/92 which was allowed by order dated 14. 1. 97 and the decree of divorce was passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment which was admitted on 9. 7. 99 and respondent No. 1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 625/- per month as maintenance till the disposal of the appeal. It is asserted that on 4. 10. 92 the respondent No. 1 illegally took away the minor chid from the custody of the petitioner on the abatement of one Rajender on the pretext of getting treatment done but the petitiner failed to return back the custody of the minor for which contempt application is pending before learned Addl. Distt. Judge Gurgaon, Haryana in this regard. It is asserted that in the month of September, 1999 the petitioner has come to know that the respondent No. 1 has entered into second marriage with respondent no. 2 on 19. 10. 1997 and one daughter Anjali @ Sweeti is also born from the said wedlock. It is claimed that respondent No. 1 has remarried despite the pendency of the appeal. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the second marriage the attitude of the respondent has changed totally towards the child who is facing mental cruelty and his needs are also being totally neglected by the respondent for obvious reasons. Hence the present petitioner be declared as the Guardian of the minor and also for his permanent custody. The respondent No. 1 in his Written Statement took the preliminary objections that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition; that the petitioner has no source of income and is unable to maintain the child; that the petition is bad for misjoinder of respondent no. 2 who is an unnecessary and improper party to the petition; that the petition is not maintainable in its present form; that the petition does not disclose any cause of action; that the petition is not supported by any affidavit and that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts. On merits, it is alleged that it is the petitioner who stayed at her parental house most of the time on one pretext or the other. Whenever she used to accompany the respondent No. 1 at the place of his posting, the petitioner used to come to her parental house after staying for few days without the consent of the respondent No. 1. She insisted staying in a private accommodation in the heart of the city and was not willing to live in the government accommodation. It is alleged that the petitioner is a hot tempered and quarrelsome lady who harassed and humiliated respondent no. 1 in one way or the other. She never gave regards to the mother of the respondent No. 1 and picked up quarrels with respondent No. 1 and his mother. It is claimed that on 17. 2. 91 the petitioner left the matrimonial home at Ghaxiabad after taking all her jewellery and ornaments with her. The respondent No. 1 made hectic efforts to bring back the petitioner but she declined to join the company of respondent No. 1. It is denied that respondent No. 1 subjected the petitioner to cruelty. The respondent No. 1 has further explained that the child was suffering from Anaemia and he t