2010 Supreme(Raj) 1483
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, J.
Lali and another - Appellant
Versus
Ramkaran - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1113 of 2010.
Decided On : 23-04-2010
Advocates:
For the Appellants:Mahendra Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Anil Poonia, Advocate.
Headnote:Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – S. 9 – respondent was given custody of the minor child of the appellant in a case pertaining to child custody by the additional district judge – respondent was grand father of the child from paternal side – Appellant filed an appeal against the said decision – however the minor expressed her willingness to stay with her mother as she was pursuing her studied from there only – it was observed that since the child is claiming to be happy with her mother it will be in the best interest of the child to stay with her mother – custody was remanded back to the mother /appellant no 1 – appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. - With the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, this case is being decided finally by this order.
2. The appellants have challenged the order dated 20th August, 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, thereby the learned Judge had granted the application filed under Section 9 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 and had directed that the custody of Kumari Sunita, the daughter of the appellant No. 1, should be given to the respondent, Ramkaran, her paternal grandfather.
3. Vide order dated 15.04.2010, this Court had directed the parties to appear before it along with Kumari Sunita. In pursuance thereof, the parties are present before this Court. This Court had an occasion to speak to Kumari Sunita in the Chamber. Kumari Sunita has stated before this Court that she wishes to live with her mother, the appellant No. 1, and with her maternal grand-parents. According to her, she was not only living their home, but she was also sent to school by them. She is eager to pursue her study. According to her, ever since the respondent has taken her to his house, initially he did not permit her to pursue her studies. Only subsequently, he has permitted her to appear in the examination. Moreover, according to her, she is unhappy at her paternal grand-parent's place. Since she has been living with her mother and her maternal grand-parents for number of years, naturally she has an emotional bonding with them. This Court had also an occasion to speak to the appellant No. 1, Lali. According to her, she would like the child to be restored to her. She has given an undertaking before this Court that she will ensure that the child continues in her studies. She has also given an undertaking that she will ensure that the child would not be married till she becomes major.
4. Considering the depositions given by Kumari Sunita and her mother, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of the child lies in her being restored to her mother and to her maternal grand-parents. Therefore, this Court sets aside the judgment dated 20th August, 2009 and directs that the child, Kumari Sunita, be returned beck to the appellant No. 1, Lali, her mother. The appellant No. 1 shall be free to take the child with her forthwith.
5. With these observations, this appeal is, hereby, allowed.Appeal allowed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
