Back
2000 (2) JLJ 155
A.K. Mishra, J.
Bhupendra Singh (Sardar) v. Smt. Jasbir Kaur
Civil Revn. No. 2386 of 1998; against the order of District Judge, East Nimar,
Khandwa, passed in
Civil Suit No. 50-A of 1997; Decided on 9.3.2000.
Manu VIII, 27: "The king shall protect the inherited (and other property) of a minor, until he has returned (from his teacher‘s house) or until he has passed minority."
Not only the welfare of the minor has to be considered but his future has also to be equally taken care of.
Narad III, 35, 36: "Till the eighth year a child is comparable (for legal purposes) to one in its mother‘s womb. till he attains the age of sixteen he is called a minor (Poganda). Then he becomes suijuris (Vyvaharagna)." [Para 10
(2) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- statutory expression under -- is based on Vedic Hindu Law recognised from time immemorial. [para 11
(3) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 13 -- appointment of guardian – is for paramount consideration of welfare of minor. [Para 11
(4) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6(a) -- lather recognised as guardian under -- can be replaced by mother even during his life time -- welfare of minor in widest sense is paramount consideration.
Section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act docs give an impression that the mother can be considered to be the natural guardian of the minor only after the lifetime of the father. But it is not disputed and otherwise well settled also that the welfare of the minor in the widest sense is the paramount consideration and even during the lifetime of the father, if necessary, he can be replaced by the mother or any other suitable person by an order of the Court, where to do so would be in the interest of the welfare of the minor. [para 12
(5) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6(a) -- expression "father and after him the mother -- need not necessary mean "after the life time of father it means " in the absence of".
The expression "father and after him the mother" need not necessarily mean "after the lifetime". In the context in which it appears in section 6(a), it means "in the absence or, the word" absence" therein referring to the father‘s absence from the care of the minor‘s property or person for any reason whatever. 1999 (2) SCC 22R followed. [Para 13
(6) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 -- all State-Parties -- to take appropriate measures to prevent discrimination of all forms against women. 1999 (2) SCC 228 followed. [para 14
(7) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- 19(b) -- father and mother -- both are duty-bound of take care of the person and property of their minor child -- father not inclined -- mother can do so. 1999 (2) SCC 228 followed. [ Para 15
(8) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- custody of minor -- Court should judicially consider welfare of minor. AIR 1060 Delhi 283 explained. [ Para 18
(9) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 – minor"s parents -- can he presumed to do their best to promote their children"s welfare. AIR 1073 SC 2090 followed. [para 19
(10) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- Conversion to different faith -- parents are not disqualified for custody of minor. AIR 1081 Bom. 175 relied on. [Para 20
(11) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- custody of minor -- not a right in nature of property -- it is a right in trust for benefit of minor. AIR 1970 MP 92 relied on. [para 21
(12) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- custody of minor -- Court is expected to strike just balance between welfare of minor and rights of parents over minor. AIR 1984 Mad. 184 relied on. [Para 21
(13) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- father‘s right to custody of minor -- not absolute -- it is circumscribed by consideration of welfare of minor. AIR 1978 Ker. 220 relied on. [Para 22
(14) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 26 -- custody of minor children -- father a multimillionaire are businessman -- not having time for children to see their welfare -- mother entitled to have the custody -- character aspect is not relevant consideration. AIR 1973 SC 2090 followed, [paras 23 & 24
(15) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 26 -- custody of minor -- father not in immediate charge of his minors -- custody rightly given to mother. [Para 26
(16) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- child -should not be taken from its parent merely because its pecuniary position. (1893) 2 QB 232 relied on. [Para 28
(17) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -- S. 6 -- welfare of child -- is not measured by-money only nor by physical comfort. (1893) 1 Ch. 143 = 62 LJ Ch. 208 relied on. [Para 28
¼1½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && vizkIro; viR; ds dY;k.k ij loksZifj /;ku fn;k tkuk gksrk gS && izR;sd viR; Hkfo"; gS && oSfnd fganw fof/k esa Lej.krhr dky ls vizkRio; ds vf/kdkj dks ekU;rk nh xbZ gSA
**vizkIro; dh fojklrh ¼rFkk vU;½ laifÙk dk laj{k.k jktk djsxk] tc rd og ¼vius f‘k{kd ds ?kj ls½ okil ugha vkrk vFkok tc rd og vizkIro; ikj ugha dj ysrkA** euq 8@27@
vizkIro; ds dY;k.k ij gh /;ku ugha fn;k tkuk gksrk] vfirq] mlds Hkfo"; dks Hkh leku ns[k&js[k dh tkuk gksrh gSA
**vkBosa o"kZ rd] ckyd ¼fof/kd iz;kstuksa ds fy,½ viuh ekrk dh dks[k eas ckyd ls rqY; gSA tc rd og lskyg o"kZ dh mez izkIr ugha djrk] og vizkIro; ¼iksxaM½ dgykrk gSA fQj og fof/k&l{ke ¼O;ogkjK½ cu tkrk gSA** ukjn 3@35&36@ ¿ iSjk 10À
¼2½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && ds v/khu dkuwuh vfHkO;fDr && Lej.kkrhr dky ls ekU; oSfnd fganw fof/k ij vk/kkfjr gSA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼3½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 13 && laj{kd dh fu;qfDr && vizkIro; ds dY;k.k ds ij loksZifj /;ku nsus ds fy, gSA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼4½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 ¼d½ && firk laj{kd ds :i esa ekU; && mlds thoudky ds nkSjku Hkh ekrk }kjk izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk ldrk gS && O;kidre vFkZ esa vizkIro; ds dY;k.k ij loksZifj /;ku fn;k tkuk gksrk gSA
fganw vizkIro;rk vkSj laj{kdrk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6¼d½ ls ;g /kkj.kk vo‘; curh gS fd firk ds thoudky ds i‘pkr~ gh ekrk dks vizkIro; dh laj{kd ekuk tk ldrk gSA iajrq ;g fookfnr ugha gS rFkk vU;Fkk Hkh lqLFkkfir gS fd lcls O;kidre vFkZ esa vizkIro; ds dY;k.k ij loksZifj /;ku fn;k tkuk gksrk gS rFkk] ;fn vko‘;d gks rc] mls U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k }kjk ekrk vFkok fdlh vU; mi;qDr O;fDr }kjk izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk ldrk gS tc ,slk djuk vizkIro; ds dY;k.k ds fgr esa gksA ¿ iSjk 12À
¼5½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6¼d½ && vfHkO;fDr *firk vkSj mlds i‘pkr~ ekrk* && vko‘;dr% ;g vFkZ ugha gSr fd firk ds thoudky ds i‘pkr~ && vFkZ gS *mldh vfo|ekurk esa*A
vfHkO;fDr *firk vkSj mlds i‘pkr~ ekrk* dk vko‘;dr% ;g vFkZ ugha gS fd *thoudky ds i‘pkr~*A ftl lanHkZ esa og /kkjk 6¼d½ esa vkbZ gS] mldk vFkZ gS *mldh vfo|ekurk esa*] mlesa ‘‘kCn *vfo|ekurk* ls fufnZ"V gS fdlh Hkh dkj.ko‘k vizkIro; dh laifÙk vFkok ‘kjhj dh ns[k&Hkky ls firk dh vfo|ekurkA ¼1999½ 2 ,l lh lh 228 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 13À
¼6½ efgykvksa ds fo#) lc izdkj ds foHksn nwj djus dk vfHkle;] 1979 && lc jkT;&i{kdkjksa dks && efgykvksa ds fo#) lc izdkj ds foHksn fuokfjr djus ds fy, leqfpr vik;k djuk gksaxsA ¼1992½ 2 ,l lh lh 228 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 14À
¼7½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6¼[k½ && firk rFkk ekrk && vius vizkIro; viR; ds ‘kjhj rFkk laifÙk dh ns[k&js[k djus dks drZO;kc) gS && firk dh :fp ugha && ekrk dj ldrh gSA ¼1999½ 2 ,l lh lh 228 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 15À
¼8½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && vizkIro; dh vfHkj{kk && U;k;ky; }kjk vizkIro; d dY;k.k ij U;kf;dr% /;ku fn;k tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1969 fnYyh 283 Li"Vh—rA ¿ iSjk 18À
¼9½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && vizkIro; ds ekrk&firk && vius viR;ksa ds dY;k.k ds fy, Hkjld iz;kl djus dh mi/kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2090 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 19À
¼10½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 & fHké /keZ dks laifjorZu && ekrk&firk vizkIro; dh vfHkj{kk ds fy, fujgZ ugha gks tkrsA , vkb vkj 1981 cacbZ 175 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 20À
¼11½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && vizkIro; dh vfHkj{kk && laifÙk ds Lo:i dk vf/kdkj ugha gS && vizkIro; ds Qk;ns ds fy, fo‘okl dk vf/kdkj gSA , vkb vkj 1976 e-iz- 92 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 21À
¼12½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && vizkIro; dh vfHkj{kk && U;k;ky; ls izR;kf‘kr gS fd vizkIro; ds dY;k.k rFkk vizkIro; ij ekrk&firk ds vf/kdkj dk _tq larqyu j[kk tk,xkA , vkb vkj 1984 enzkl 184 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 21À
¼13½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && vizkIro; dh vfHkj{kk dk firk dk vf/kdkj && vkR;afrd ugha gS && vizkIro; ds dY;k.k ds fopkj ls lhekc) gSA , vkb vkj 1978 dsjy 220 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 22À
¼14½ faganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 26 && vizkIro; viR;ksa dh vfHkj{kk && firk djksM+ifr O;olk;h && viR;ksa dk dY;k.k ns[kus ds fy, le; ugha && ekrk vfHkj{kk ikus dh gdnkj && pfj= ds igyw ij /;ku fn;k tkuk lqlaxr ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2090 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 23 rFkk 24À
¼15½ faganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 26 && vizkIro; dh vfHkj{kk && firk vius vizkIro;ksa dk lh/kk Hkkjlk/kd ugha && vfHkj{kk Bhd&gh ekrk dks nh xbZA ¿ iSjk 26À
¼16½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && viR; && ek= /ku laca/kh voLFkk ds dkj.k mlds ekrk&firk ls fy;k ugha tk ldrkA ¼1893½ 2 D;w ch 232 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 28À
¼17½ faganw vizkIro;rk vkSj lja{kdrk vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 6 && viR; dk dY;k.k && ek= /ku vFkok ‘kkjhfjd vkjke ls ekik ugha tkrkA ¼1993½ 1 lh,p 143 ¾ 62 ,y ts lh,p 208 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 28À
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.9.98 passed in Civil Suit No. 50-A/97 by District Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa.
2. The respondent was married with the petitioner on 18.9.85 and three issues were born out of the wedlock i.e. two sons -- Manpreet Singh and Tajinder Singh and one daughter namely Ku. Tanvee Sardar Bhupendra Singh had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act on the ground that respondent-wife was involved in the conspiracy to commit the murder of the father of the petitioner. Petitioner was also allegedly insulted by the respondent levelling a charge against him of being incapable to satisfy her sexual desire. The respondent-wife, however, denied the allegations and made counter allegations against the petitioner-husband that she was forced by him to live in her parental house.
3. An application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a direction regarding the custody of two sons -- Manpreet Singh aged about 11 years and Tejinder Singh aged about 7 years. It was alleged in the application that daughter-Tanvee is living with respondent-mother and the sons Manpreet Singh and Tejinder Singh are in the custody of petitioner-father. It was also alleged in the application that petitioner Bhupendra Singh is not able to look-after the children and both the sons have been deprived of the parental love and affection by the act of the husband/petitioner. Son-Manpreet Singh has been kept in hostel and is studying in Christ Church Higher Secondary School at Jabalpur. It is also alleged that petitioner husband is showing apathy towards his sons. Younger son- Tejinder Singh is living at Burhanpur with the sister of petitioner-husband and taking his education at Burhanpur itself. Thus, both the sons are deprived of parental love and care which is a basic requirement in such a tender age. It is further alleged that as the petitioner-husband is not willing to keep the children with him, and for this reason only son Tejinder singh has been sent to his sister's place at Burhanpur. It is also one of the allegations that petitioner-husband does not permit the respondent-mother of the children to meet them. The sons, both Manpreet Singh and Tejinder Singh, are alleged to be under the constant threat. Initially Son Tejinder Singh was admitted in St. Poise School at Khandwa. in May 1997. When mother/respondent contacted her son, he was taken out from that school and was sent to Burhanpur. Both the sons are not allowed to meet their mother/the respondent.
4. Petitioner-husband has denied the allegations levelled by respondent/wife, and contended that she was not capable of looking-after the interest of the children and keeping in view the welfare of the children he has got them admitted in different schools at Burhanpur and Jabalpur, and they are taking proper education. It is also alleged by the petitioner-husband that respondent/wife was not in a position to maintain both the sons as she herself had filed an application claiming maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As per the petitioner he meets his sons from time to time and takes them to Khandwa on holidays. It has been submitted that minor children could remain only in the custody of natural father and not in the custody of mother.
5. Learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 21.9.98 has directed that since the husband was not keeping his both sons with him, they could he properly looked-after, in the circumstances, by the mother and thus custody of both the sons was ordered to be handed-over to mother. However, it was ordered that since both the sons were taking education at Jahalpur and Burhanpur, they should be transferred to mother's custody only after' completion of academic session and the mother shall make arrangement for their proper education. It was also observed in the order of the trial Court that it would be open for the husband-Bhupender Singh to meet the so
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
