MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
Sheel Nagu, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Ramkumar Swami And Another - Appellants
Versus
Aditya Trivedi - Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 4269 of 2019
Decided On : 27-01-2020
Guardians and Wards Act - Custody - 7 - [7]
Fact of the Case:
Marriage between respondent and daughter of appellants, Smt. Bharti, resulted in the birth of Divya. After Smt. Bharti's suicide, the respondent, being the natural guardian, sought custody of Divya under Section 7 of the Act. The appellants, Smt. Bharti's parents, had custody of Divya and opposed the respondent's application. The court directed the appellants to hand over custody to the respondent, leading to the appellants' appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the welfare of the minor as the paramount consideration in appointing a guardian, emphasizing the child's welfare over the rights of the parents or relatives. It noted the child's affinity towards her maternal grandparents and her expressed reluctance to live with her father, who had faced trial for the death of Smt. Bharti. The court found that the child's welfare would be best served by granting custody to her maternal grandmother, i.e., appellant No.2.
Issues: The main issue was the custody of Divya, with the court tasked with determining the best interests of the child and the suitability of the potential guardians.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the paramount consideration of the child's welfare in appointing a guardian, as highlighted in various judicial pronouncements. It considered the child's expressed preference, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian, and the circumstances of the case to determine custody.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's order and directed the continued custody of Divya with her maternal grandmother until she attains the age of majority.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava,J. - Appellants has preferred this Misc. Appeal under Section 47(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for brevity, the 'Act') assailing the order dated 22.7.2019 passed by First Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in MJC No. 07/2017 (Aditya Trivedi vs. Ramkumar Swami and another), whereby the application preferred by the respondent under Section 7 of the Act for custody of his daughter has been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.4.2012 marriage was solemnized between respondent and daughter of appellants, namely, Smt. Bharti and out of their wedlock girl Divya was born. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of filing of application under Section 7 of the Act, Divya was aged about four years. It is further alleged that soon after the marriage of the respondent, Smt. Bharti committed suicide on 2.10.2013. A false case was registered against the respondent for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and under the garb of the false FIR the appellants took daughter Divya into their custody. Thereafter the respondent has been acquitted by the trial Court in connection with the aforesaid offences and appeal against the judgment of acquittal has also been dismissed. Thus, the respondent being natural guardian of daughter Divya moved an application under Section 7 of the Act for custody of his daughter. Reply of the application has been filed by the appellants denying the averments pleaded in the application. The First Additional District Judge, Dabra framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties directed vide impugned order to the appellants to hand over forthwith the custody of daughter Divya to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants attacks the impugned order on the ground that the order is illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. The Court below has ignored the fact that daughter Divya was under her grandparent's upbringing since when she was 6 months old. The Court below has failed to consider that paramount consideration is welfare of child and the respondent is not able to provide good education, atmosphere and other facilities to the daughter and he has not made any attempt during the last five years to seek custody of his daughter. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned order.
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
6. Sections 7 of the Act reads as under :-
' 7. Power of the Court to make order as to guardianship.--(1) where the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that an order should be made-- (a) appointing a guardian of his person or property, or both, or (b) declaring a person to be such a guardian, the Court may make an order accordingly.
(2) An order under this section shall imply the removal of any guardian who has not been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court.
(3) Where a guardian has been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court, an order under this section appointing or declaring another person to be guardian in his stead shall not be made until the powers of the guardian appointed or declared as aforesaid have ceased under the provisions of this Act. "
7. The following matters are required to be considered by the Court in appointing guardian :-
(i) In appointing or declaring guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided by what consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor.
(ii) In considering what will be the welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, se
Bimla Devi vs. Subhas Chandra Yadav "Nirala
Chandrakala Menon (Mrs.) vs. Vipin Menon (Capt)
Elizabeth Dinshaw (Mrs.) vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw
Gaurav Nagpal vs. Slumedha Nagpal
Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi vs. Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi
L.Chandran vs. Mrs. Venkatalakshmi and Anr.
Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs. Jayanti Ganguli
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw and Anr.
Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal
Shyamrao Maroti Korwate vs. Deepak Kisanrao Tekam
Smt. Elokeshi Chakraborty vs. Sri Sunil Kumar Chakraborty
Smt. Surindar Kaur Sandhu vs. Harbax Singh Sandhu and Anr.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.