The Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant custody of a child to the natural guardian, and delay in moving an amendment should not be a ground for rejection if it does not cause material injustice to the other party.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.

1. The orders dated 14.07.2017 and 18.05.2017 passed by the District Judge, Meerut in revision Nil of 2017 (Kuldeep Kumar & another v. Nain Kumar & another) and Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.8, Meerut in original suit no.683 of 2012 are under challenge.

2. A perusal of the record indicates that the aforesaid suit was filed by the parent/natural guardian of the child namely Hemang Dev in the year 2012. The contention therein is that child was never adopted by the defendants who are brother and sister-in-law of plaintiff no.1. The registration of the adoption deed was a result of fraud committed upon the plaintiffs. The cause of action for filing the said suit arose on 23.05.2012 when the defendants had refused to cancel the said deed by mutual consent.

3. The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement wherein it was admitted that Hemang Dev, for whose adoption deed in question was registered is real son of the plaintiffs. However, it was submitted that the adoption deed was executed after adopting due procedure and performance of rituals for adoption. The registered deed of adoption could not be cancelled by the Court. In the said suit, evidence of the parties have been recorded.

4. At this stage, an application 55-Ka dated 27.02.2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of paragraph no.13 of the plaint and the plaint relief in paragraph no.16. The original paragraph no.13 of the plaint and the plaint relief in paragraph no.16-A are as under:-

13 & ;g fd oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k dh ckr lqudj cgqr nq%[k gqvkA oknhx.k us vius firk o cM+s HkkbZ f'konr dqekj ls Hkh xksnukes dh ckr dh rks mUgksaus xksnukesa dks iathd`r fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;kA izfroknhx.k us xksnukes dh QksVks dkih Hkh oknhx.k dks fn[kkbZ rc oknhx.k us esjB lc&jftLV~kj dk;kZy; vkdj fnuakd 18-04-2012 dks mDr QthZ /kks[kk/kM+h ij Kku gqvkA oknhx.k us izfroknhx.k ls mijksDr rFkkdfFkr xksnukek@fnukafdr vDVwcj] 2010 dks fujLr djkus dh ;kpuk dh ijUrq izfroknhx.k us xksnukes dks fujLr djkus ls Li"V :i ls bUdkj dj fn;k blfy;s oknhx.k etcwju ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa mDr okn ;ksftr djrs gSaA

;g fd oknhx.k fuEu izfrdkj ikus dk izkFkhZ gS%

16 & v ;g fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh ?kks"k.kkRed fMdzh cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; ls tkjh dh tk;s fd rFkkdfFkr xksnukek fnukafdr 01-10-2010] bdjkjh oknhx.k cgd izfroknhx.k] ftldh jftLVjh fnuakd 01-10-2010 dks cgh la[;k&4 ftYn la[;k 388 ds i`"B la[;k 159 ls 172 ij dzekad 432 ij gS] dks 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA

5. The proposed amendment in paragraph no.13 (13-A) and the plaint relief in paragraph no.2 of the amendment application are as under:-

13 v & ;g fd nkSjku okn fnukad 01-12-2012 dks tcfd oknhx.k vius firk Jh vkseizdk'k dh chekjh dh voLFkk esa esjB esa oknh la[;k 1 ds cM+s HkkbZ f'konr dqekj ds fuokl LFkku 'kkL=h uxj] esjB esa ns[kus vk;s rks lka;dky esa tcfd ogka ij izfroknhx.k igys ls gh mifLFkr Fks rks izfroknhx.k cM+h pkykdh ls oknhx.k ds NksVs iq= gseax nso dks cgdk dj ys x;s ftlds lEcU/k esa oknhx.k us Fkkuk ukSpUnh] esjB esa f'kdk;r dh rks Fkkuk ukSpUnh] esjB dh iqfyl us ikfjokfjd ekeyk crkrs gq;s rFkk eqdnek U;k;ky; esa yfEcr crkrs gq;s dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh djus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA rc ls izfroknhx.k oknhx.k ds iq= gseax nso dks voS/k :i ls vius ikl j[ks gq;s gSa ftls fd oknhx.k okil izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA

2 & ;g fd okn i= dh /kkjk 16 dh vfUre iafDr ds i'pkr~ fuEu 'kCn vkSj c<+k;s tkosa%

rFkk oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls vius iq= gseax nso dks okil fnyk;k tkosA

6. A perusal of the original pleadings and proposed amendment would indicate that the plaintiff's case was that the defendants got the adoption deed executed by forgery and by the proposed amendment it was sought to be added that the plaintiff's younger son was brain-washed by the defendants. A complaint was made in the police station that the defendants are forcibly keeping their child with them. By way of amendment in the plaint relief the custody