Back
High Court Of Delhi
JASWANT KAUR - Appellant
Versus
MANJIT SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal Order 131 of 1982
Decided On : 09/12/1984
CUSTODY OF CHILD - HINDU LAW - FATHER'S RIGHT TO CUSTODY - WELFARE OF THE CHILD - REMARRIAGE OF FATHER - STEP-MOTHER'S TREATMENT OF CHILD - COURT'S DISCRETION - VISITATION RIGHTS OF MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute between the maternal grandparents and the father of a 10-year-old boy named Raghubir Singh, also known as Happy, over his custody. The father, Manjit Singh Marwaha, had obtained a divorce from the child's mother, Harjit Kaur, in 1980 and remarried in October of the same year. The child had been living with his maternal grandparents since birth and was being cared for and educated by them. The father filed a petition for custody of the child, which was contested by the grandparents.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the father's legal right to the custody of his son under Hindu law, but also considered the paramount consideration of the child's welfare. The court noted that the father had remarried and had a daughter from his second marriage, and that there was a possibility that the step-mother might not treat the child kindly and affectionately, which could adversely affect his mental and physical growth.
Issues: 1. Whether the father's remarriage and the presence of a step-mother would adversely affect the child's welfare and disentitle the father from custody? 2. Whether the child's long-standing relationship with his maternal grandparents and their ability to provide a stable and loving environment should be given more weight than the father's legal right to custody?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the father's remarriage and the presence of a step-mother alone were not sufficient grounds to deny him custody of his son. The court considered the father's keenness to have custody of the son, his employment and financial stability, and his willingness to provide for the child's education and upbringing. The court also took into account the fact that the maternal grandparents were getting older and might not be able to exercise proper control over the child in the future.
Final Decision: The court granted custody of the child to the father, but with certain conditions to ensure that the child maintained a relationship with his maternal grandparents. The court directed that during long vacations, the grandparents or maternal uncles would have the right to keep the child with them for half of the vacation period, and that the father would be responsible for bringing the child back after the specified period. The court also stated that if the child's welfare was jeopardized by any act of willful neglect or otherwise by the father, the grandparents could approach the district court for appropriate directions and relief.
( 1 ) THE delicate question that arises for decision in this appeal is as to who out of the two contending parties should be given the custody of the male child named Raghubir Singh nick: named happy aged 10 years. The contest is between the maternal grand parents and the father. The. trial Judge has given the custody to the father. The maternal grand parents have come in appeal.
( 2 ) THE respondent herein Manjit Singh Marwaha was married to Harjit Kaur (daughter of the appellants) on 15th August 1973, The couple was blessed with a son on 16th August 1974. The parties separated on 17th August 1975. There is no clear evidence regarding the causes of the rapture in the married life of the couple. The father filed a petition for restitution of the conjugal rights and according to him on the assurance given by the father of the wife that he would send Harjit Kaur he withdrew that petition but the wife did not return to the marital home. The respondent (husband) filed and petition for divorce which was granted by an Additional District Judge on 28th August 1980.
( 3 ) THE case of the appellants is that at the time of the marriage the respondent was unemployed and he had deserted the wife. Smt. Jaswant Kaur, the mother of the wife, gave evidence that after the marriage the respondent took the wife to Bombay, that after staying at Bombay for about 9 days they returned to Delhi and resided at Wazipur for about 3 months, and thereafter both of them came to their house, that the petitioner was not employed at that time and they helped the petit ioner to get a job at Plaza Cinema, and that thereafter for some time they lived in block No. 11, Rajouri Garden.
( 4 ) THE respondent (husband) gave evidence that after the birth of the child the wife started behaving rudely towards him and she would often quarrel with him, that she left the matrimonial home, in the absence on 19th September 1975 along with the child, that he did his best to bring her back but the parents refused to send her. The respondent further stated that he waited for about six months for the wife to come back but he received a letter from her saying that she is not willing to live with him. He further deposed that his wife had illicit relation with some one living in the vicinity of the house of her parents.
( 5 ) ON an examination of the pleading and the evidence produced on the record, as earlier stated, it is difficult to discover the real cause leading to the unhappy ending of the marriage. The undisputed facts are that after obtaining divorce on 16th August 1980 the respondent remarridd on 12th October 1980 and from the second marriage he has a daugther (now aged 2 years and 8 months ). The respondent was employed as an Assistant Cashier in the Punjab and Sind Bank in 1975 and was posted at Bombay. He was transferred to Delhi on 1st October 1982 and is now posted at Singhola branch. Delhi, the respondent ia his affidavit dated 5th September 1934 has stated that he did graduation in law at Bombay in the year 1982 and that very soon he is likely to be promoted to an officer s grade The respondent has further in the said affidavit stated that he is at present receiving a salary of Rs. 1479. 03.
( 6 ) ON the other side the undisputed and proved facts are that the son was born at the house of the grand parents on 16th August 1974 and since his birth he is being looked after and brought up by the maternal grand parents. Both the maternal grand parents are alive. The son is receiving education in Happy Model School and is now studying in the fourth standard. His tuition fee and the bus fare are Rs. 2651. 00 per morth and this expense is being met by the grand parents. The "rand parents with their two sons are staying at J-4] 16, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The ground floor is on rent and the first floor and a barsati are in their personal occupation, Both the sons are now married. The elder son has has daughters and the younger son one daughter.
THE grand-mother S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
