IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 878 of 2024 CHHOTESINGH Versus SMT. KALPNA Appearance:

Appellant with Shri (Dr). Jitendra Kumar Jain - Advocate.

Respondent with Shri Harshvardhan Sharma - Advocate.

ORDER Per: Justice Anil Verma Both the parties appeared in person.

2. Today, Child Pawan is brought before this Court by appellant Grandfather (Dada) Chhotesingh. Pawan submits that since last so many years, he is continuously residing with his Grandfather and he is happy with him and in future, he is willing to live with his Grandfather only. He has categorically stated that he is not ready to live with his mother/respondent Kalpana. Respondent Kalpana has stated that after death of his husband (father of minor Pawan), she solemnized second marriage and now, she has left her second husband also and intended to solemnize her third marriage. When this Court made query about welfare of minor child Pawan, respondent Kalpana admits that it would be difficult for her to live with minor child with second or third husband. She would be satisfied if the visitation rights to interact with her minor son Pawan, is granted to her.

3. Both the parties heard finally.

4. The instant first appeal under Section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter it would be referred as “the Act of 1890”) has been preferred by appellant (mother of minor child) challenging the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Datia in MJCGW No.124/2021, whereby an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1890 filed by respondent (mother of child) seeking custody of minor child Pawan, has been allowed.

5. Necessary facts for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that the respondent preferred a petition under Section 25 of the Act of 1980 read with Section 6 of (In short HMA 1956) seeking custody of her minor son Pawan aged about eight years with the submission that initially, her marriage was solemnized with Ravishankar, who was son of appellant Chhotesingh and due to wedlock, her minor son Pawan was borne on 13.02.2017. Unfortunately, her husband Ravishankar has died on 23.11.2017, therefore, she solemnized second marriage with Dinesh Raikwar and now, she is living in village Ito. Her minor son Pawan has been living with his Grandfather Chhotesingh and he has refused to hand over the custody of minor child. When she requested for it, Chhotesingh, he has threatened her. She is natural guardian of minor child and able to maintain her child. Therefore, custody of minor child Pawan be granted to her.

6. Present appellant (respondent in the proceedings before the trial Court) has stated in his written submission before the trial Court that the respondent Kalpana is not entitled for the custody of minor child. She is a clever lady and mentally and physically harassed his son Ravishankar and due to the depression, he had committed suicide. The matter has been reported to PS Pandokhar. Respondent is having no intimacy with the minor child, therefore, she solemnized her second marriage with Dinesh Raikwar and left minor child of the age of two years. Thereafter, the appellant he is continuously taking care of the minor child. He has sufficient financial resources to look after the minor child properly.

7. After considering the pleadings of both the parties, the Family Court framed the issues. After going through the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Court vide impugned order, allowed the application filed by the respondent for seeking custody of minor child with a direction to the appellant to hand over the custody of minor child. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court has committed error in allowing the application filed by the respondent seeking custody of the minor child. He has further su