Natural guardianship principles and admissions regarding paternity must be prioritized in custody cases involving minors.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 47 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 by the Appellant, who is the natural father of the Respondent No.2, challenging the Judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak in Guardian Misc. Case No.13 of 2021, vide which his prayer for guardianship stood rejected.

2. Though notice was duly served on the Respondent No.l, who is the maternal grandfather of Respondent No.2 (minor child) and represents him in this Appeal, chose not to appear in this Case to oppose the prayer made in the Appeal. Hence, the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.11.2025, followed by further hearing today.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

4. As is revealed from the record, the Appellant preferred Guardian Misc. Case No.13 of 2021 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak with the following prayers:

“a. That the petitioner be declared as legal guardian and custodian of respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 be directed to hand over Respondent No.2 to the custody of petitioner within stipulated period.

b. That the cost of this litigation be passed against the Respondent No.1 and in favour of the petitioner.

c. That any other relief petitioner is entitled be awarded to the petitioner.

4.1 It was specifically pleaded in Guardian Misc. Case No.13 of 2021 that the Appellant (Petitioner before the Court below) and deceased Ranjulata are the husband and wife. After their marriage was solemnized on 19.06.2019 according to Hindu rites and customs, both of them were living as husband and wife peacefully. When Ranjulata had been to her paternal house, she expired there due to cardiac arrest. Since then the minor child is with the Respondent No.1.

The Respondent No 1, who is the maternal grandfather, has kept Respondent No 2, the minor son of the Appellant. The Respondent No 1 did not allow the Appellant to see his son. The Appellant visited his in-laws house time and again but the Respondent No 1 allegedly confined the Respondent No 2 in a room and did not allow the Appellant to see his son which is nothing but illegal confinement amounting to an offence. That apart, it was also alleged that the life of Respondent No 2 is not safe at the house of Respondent No.1. After the death of Ranjulata Majhi, the Appellant is the legal guardian- custodian as per Hindu Minority and guardianship Act. Still, he has been deprived to get back his son due to illegal interference and illegal confinement by Respondent No 1.

It was also pleaded before the Court below that the Respondent No 2 is a child of 10 months and he has been deprived to get nutritious food and unable to lead his normal life and his life is in danger. In spite of repeated requests, the Respondent No 1 is not allowing the Appellant to remain with Respondent No 2. The request to take Respondent No. 2 was refused by Respondent No 1, thereby compelling the Appellant to knock the door of the learned Court below seeking the relief of guardianship of the Respondent No.2.

4.2 The Respondent No.1 appeared before the Court below and filed an objection admitting therein that the Petitioner (Appellant herein) as the natural guardian of Respondent No.2 (minor child).

However, the prayer for guardianship was opposed on mere apprehension that the present Appellant (Petitioner before the Court below) is a young person and he may marry another girl for his future. If it so happens, the step mother cannot take proper care of the new born child, which is ofte