Hon’ble Dinesh Gupta, J.—This first appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Baghpat in Misc. Case No. 3/2001 under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

2. The brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that the appellant preferred an application under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for having custody of his two minor daughters namely Km. Monika and Km. Komal.

3. As per the averments made in the application, the appellant was married to the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kaushal with all Hindu rites on 22.5.1991 and out of the said wedlock two daughters were born. The elder daughter Monika was born on 31.8.1993 and the younger daughter Km. Komal was born on 25.10.1994. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 suddenly left the house of the appellant and went to her father (opposite party No. 2) and thereafter she performed second marriage with one Mehak Singh on 6.10.1998 and handed over his elder daughter Km. Monika to opposite party No. 2 Sukhbir and his younger daughter Komal is still living with opposite party No. 1 at the house of Mehak Singh. The opposite party No. 1 is not taking care of her two daughters nor she is taking care of education of her two children. In fact the applicant is the natural guardian of both the daughters and he so many times requested opposite party No. 1 to hand over the custody of his two daughters to him but the opposite party No. 1 refused. Hence, he moved the application under Section 25 Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

4. The opposite party No. 1 preferred objections and in the said objections, the opposite party No. 1 admitted her marriage with the appellant. However, she refuted other allegations and alleged that soon after marriage the appellant and his family members harassed and ill treated her and also demanded dowry and when the parents of the opposite party No. 1 could not fulfil the demands of the appellant, the appellant and his other family members turned out the opposite party No. 1 from their house at the time when she was pregnant and thereafter, she came to her father’s house where she gave birth to her second daughter. The opposite party No. 2 further alleged that she is taking care of both the daughters herself and with the help of her father. The applicant never maintained his two daughters, on the contrary, misbehaved with them. The opposite party No. 2 is taking care of her daughters and is giving proper education and the daughters also are not agreed to go with their father and they want to remain with the opposite party No. 1.

5. The applicant in support of his application filed some documents regarding the second marriage of the opposite party No. 1 and also examined himself and one witness Ashok while from the side of the opposite party, the opposite party examined her minor daughters namely Km. Monika and Km. Komal as witnesses. After hearing the rival submissions of both the parties, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application of the appellant vide order dated 8.1.2010.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal before this Court.

7. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

8. Heard rival submissions made by the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted :

That admittedly the marriage of the plaintiff-appellant was solemnized with the defendant-respondent and two female children were born out of the said wedlock and the appellant being the real father of these two female children is entitled to take custody of both the daughters. Since respondent No. 1 has remarried with one Mehak Singh without taking divorce from the appellant, hence welfare of the daughters cannot be presumed to be protected in the house of Mehak Singh. The finding of the lower Court is erroneous in this regard;

That there was specific allegation regarding the marriage of respondent No. 1 with one Mehak Singh. The learned Court below tot