Govindan Nair CJ; The question that arises in this case is about the custody and guardian-ship of a minor girl of 8 years, and the contestants for custody and guardianship are the appellants on the one side and the respondents on the other.

The appellants are the grandfather and the mother of a young girl. Soon after her birth on the 7th of January, 1970, in August of the same year her father died. The father and the mother (second appellant) of the girlwere at that time in Germany. The second appellant came to India (Ahamedabad) with the baby, where her father, the first appellant, and her mother lived. But she found it difficult to live in India with the baby. She decided to go to the Continent and then to the United States. She left very soon afterwards in December, 1970, and the child was then entrusted to the first and second respondents. They are a couple who are related to the first appellant, the grandfather of the child. The second respondent is the sister’s son of the first appellant and the first respondent is the wife of the second respondent. The first respondent is a Bengali and the appellants and the second respondent are from Gujarat. The two respondents have no children. They are admittedly in good circumstances. The mother, after leaving India towards the end of 1970, found her way to the United States and there she got married again, but that marriage did not last long and it ended in divorce. Soon afterwards, however, she found another partner and married for the third time and even that marriage ended in a divorce. She has now married tor the fourth time and that marriage, we are told, is still enduring and the couple have a young child. In the meantime, it is clear from the facts that the young girl continued to be in Pondicherry till at least sometime in 1972. The picture from the middle of 1972 to October 1975 is not a very clear one. The trial Court, dealing with the evidence, came to the conclusion that the child was in Ahmedabad during that period and was going to school there. The learned Judge of this Court who dealt with the appeal came to a different conclusion and held that the finding of the trial Court that the child was in Ahmedabad from 1972 to 1975 cannot be accepted.

2. The two respondents in the above circumstances applied under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for appointing both of them as legal guardians of the child. Matters came to a head in 1976 when it was insisted that the child should return to Ahmedabad and the respondents were reluctant to part with the child. This seems to have been the immediate cause for the application for guardianship. In the application, only the first appellant was first made a respondent. The mother of the child go herself impleaded later and also was examined during trial. The evidence in the case consisted mainly of letters which were sent by the mother when she was in the United States as well as the evidence of the second respondent and also the mother of the child, the second appellant.

3. The contention put forward on behalf of the respondents was that the mother had conducted herself in such a way that she had forfeited her legal right to be the guardian of the minor and that in any view of the matter it was not in the interests of the minor child that the minor child should be entrusted with the mother. They also contended that they had been looking after the child with great care and love and have been showering affection on her, that she has been looked after very well, and that she is being educated properly and is going to school. They further contended that the child has been happy in their company and that it would be very much against the welfare of the child if she is taken away from them, and they even went to the extent of saying that an estrangement from them would cause a rude shock to the child which might even affect her mind. There is also evidence to show that the respondents are very much attached to the child and ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document