IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No.78 of 2023

----- -

Rakesh Shukla, aged about 46 years, son of Late Yogendra Prasad Shukla, resident of Neel Kuthi Danga, S.C. Sen Road, P.O. + P.S. Purulia and District Purulia-723101, at present residing at 143-B, Alok Smrity Budha Colony, Patna, P.O.-

G.P.O., Patna, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna (Bihar).

… … Appellant

Versus

1. Putul Devi Upadhyay, wife of Late Ram Ratan Upadhyay. 2. Raj Kishore Upadhyay, son of late Ram Ratan Upadhyay.

3. Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay, son of Late Ram Ratan

Upadhyay.

All residents of Bank Colony, Near New Stadium Pakur,

P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand).

… … Respondents

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

…..

For the Appellant : Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Advocate

[Through V.C.]

: Mr. Sunil Kr. Mahto, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate

: Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha, Advocate

…..

C.A.V. on 28.11.2025 Pronounced on 16/12/2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 and 15.01.2023 respectively, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in Original Guardianship Suit No. 86 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the plaintiff/appellant under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of minor son has

been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant in brief is that the plaintiff/appellant is the father of the minor Anirudh Kumar and plaintiff/appellant was married to Rita Shukla and out of their wedlock she delivered the minor Anirudh Kumar on 03.11.2009 at Purulia District (West Bengal) in a Nursing Home and just after eight hours of delivery she died in the said hospital.

3. Since the wife of plaintiff/appellant died just after eight hours of delivery of minor Anirudh Kumar the defendant no. 1 (Putul Devi Upadhyay) was allowed to retain the custody of the minor with consent of the plaintiff/appellant.

4. The defendant made promise that after five years she will hand over/return the minor to the plaintiff/appellant and at the time of death of wife of the plaintiff/appellant the father-in-law of the plaintiff/appellant was alive and he has given assurance to return the minor to the plaintiff/appellant but in the meantime father-in-law also died.

5. With the consent of defendant no. 1 Putul Devi Upadhayay and father-in-law, plaintiff/appellant got married with another lady who is also willing to get the custody of minor.

6. It is the further case of the appellant that the defendant no. 2 Raj Kishore Upadhayay and defendant no. 3 Rakesh Kumar Upadhayay are not allowing the defendant no. 1 Putul Devi Upadhayay to handover the custody of minor to the plaintiff/appellant.

7. After attaining five years of age minor Anirudh Kumar custody was promised to be given to plaintiff/appellant for his welfare and the plaintiff/appellant is capable to get minor Anirudh Kumar educated and wiling and ready to do all act for his welfare as his earning is more than 7 Lakhs per annum.

8. After attaining five years of age the custody of Minor Anirudh Kumar was not handed over the plaintiff/appellant. He visited the house of defendant on 12.06.2017 along with his mother and two younger brothers again on 15.08.2018 and lastly visited on 19.05.2019 but the defendant denied to return the ward/minor to the custody of the plaintiff/appellant, as such cause of action arose on

19.05.2019.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances as alleged by the appellant, an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for return of ward/minor to the custody of the biological father as a guardian for the benefit and upliftment to give proper education and care of the minor and the same has been numbered as the Original Guardianship Suit No.

86 of 2019.

10. After, service of notice defendants appeared before the court and filed their written statement on 13.01.2022.

11. The defenda