Nirmaljit Kaur, J.:- This is an appeal against the judgement/order dated 13.06.2009 passed by the Guardian Judge, Amritsar, vide which the petition filed by the respondent-grand father under Sections 7, 8 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, claiming custody of the minor female child, namely, Asleen Kaur, was allowed.

2. The present petition has, therefore, been filed by the maternal grand parents of the minor child, challenging the aforesaid judgement/order.

3. The facts in short are that on 30.05.2002, marriage between the son of the respondent and the daughter of the appellants took place at Amritsar. As per the allegations, the son of the respondent was alcoholic and used to take excessive liquor and while under the influence of liquor, he used to abuse the daughter of the appellants. Subsequently, he died on 02.11.2006. After the death, the behaviour of the respondent as well as the family members, forced the daughter of the appellants to leave her in-laws house i.e. the respondent, along with her minor female child on 13.12.2006. Thereafter, she also died on 13.08.2008 due to electric shock because of rainy water that entered into the house on account of heavy rain.

4. While challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellants submitted:-

a) That immediately after the death of Surpreet Singh son of the respondent, the mother of the son namely Smt. Pushpinder Kaur wife of respondent moved an application to L.I.C. Hall Bazaar Unit-II, claiming the amount of three insurance policies nos. 130562743, 022748753 and 470268092. In the form, Ex. RW 10, she falsely stated that she being the mother of Surpreet Singh is the only surviving claimant as the deceased had left no Will, no widow and no child as the deceased was unmarried. The surety/indemnity bond Ex. RW 10/1 was executed by Shri Arminder Singh son in law of the respondent in this behalf. The above named Pushpinder Kaur, wife of the respondent i.e. paternal grand mother got the money of the insurance claim of the above three policies by defrauding the L.I.C., as well as Sumeet Kaur and her child. Sumeet Kaur wife of Surpreet Singh, who was alive at that time, made her claim of these policies before the L.I.C. When the fraud was revealed, a criminal case u/s 420/463/464/465/468/471 IPC was registered vide FIR No. 27 of 2008 in the Court at Amritsar against the respondent-paternal grand father, grand mother and son in law. The L.I.C. has also filed civil suit No. 113 dated 23.02.2008 against Smt. Pushpinder Kaur mother and Arminder Singh, brother-in-law of Surpreet Singh deceased, for recovery of Rs.5,75,882.00 with interest of Rs.12672/- @ 18% per annum. The ground pleaded in the aforesaid suit by the L.I.C. for the said recovery is that the above named Pushpinder Kaur and her son-in-law Arminder Singh fraudulently took L.I.C. amount of the policies but later on when Sumeet Kaur wife of Surpreet Singh learnt about the fraud, she also submitted her claim of the policies being widow of Surpreet Singh. The above suit is pending in the Court of Shri Roshan Lal Chohan, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar. From the demonstration of the above facts, the respondent has no moral right to claim the custody of the child because fraud and justice never dwell together.

b) That the respondent is in the habit of not stating truth. For example, in the petition, he has falsely stated that his son Surpreet Singh died because of misbehaviour of Sumeet Kaur whereas the respondent has filed a suit against ICICI Bank and in the said suit he has stated that his son died due to blockage of food pipe and could not be saved due to timely medical treatment. The fact is that he died due to intoxication. Still further, in a letter dated 14.05.2007, written by Pushpinder Kaur mother of Surpreet Singh and the wife of the respondent to the Branch Manager LIC Office Unit No. 11, Amritsar, as EX RW10/5, the cause of death of Surpreet Singh was written as ‘due to food poiso