[2026:RJ-JD:3346-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2272/2024 Smt. Vandana W/o Late Shri Pradeep Soni, Aged About 30 Years, R/o A-243, Shreenath Marg, Sanjay Colony, Nehru Road, Bhilwara, Presently Residing At Pratap Chouraha, Fatehnagar, Dist. Udaipur ----Appellant Versus

1. Murlidhar S/o KanhaiyalalSoni, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Shrimal Colony, Behind Govt. Hospital Asind Dist.

Bhilwara

2. Smt. Munni Devi W/o MurlidharSoni, R/o Shrimal Colony, Behind Govt. Hospital, Asind Dist. Bhilwara ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kalptaru Tripathi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Rajpurohit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

20/01/2026

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Gulabpura in Civil Misc Case No. 33/2024 whereby the application filed on behalf of the appellant under Sections 6 & 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for interim custody of the minor child was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details are that the appellant, a widow now, married late Pradeep Soni and had two children: a son, Devansh (born in 2018), and a daughter, Pranvi (born in 2021). After her husband’s death due to Covid-19 in 2021, she continued to live with her in-laws at Asind, Bhilwara, where she was allegedly subjected to mental and physical harassment and treated like a servant. She endured this for about two and a half years.

2.1. In June 2023, the appellant went to her parents’ home in Fatehnagar, Udaipur, with her daughter, but her in-laws did not permit her son Devansh to accompany her. During her stay, she fell ill and allegedly faced abuse and threats from her in-laws over phone calls, prompting her to file a police complaint at Police Station Fatehnagar. Thereafter, she decided not to return to her in- laws’ house, while her son continued to live with his grandparents. 2.2. Seeking custody of her son, the appellant filed an application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before the SDM, Mavli. The SDM, by order dated 05.08.2023, rejected her application and granted custody of Devansh to respondent No.1 (the grandfather), relying on the child’s stated wish. The appellant’s revision petition against this order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Mavli on 22.09.2023, holding that Section 97 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to family custody disputes involving a Hindu minor.

2.3. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 before the Family Court, Bhilwara, seeking custody of her son. However, on the respondents’ transfer application, the matter was transferred to the Family Court, Gulabpura by order dated

01.03.2024.

2.4. After hearing both parties, the Family Court, by order dated 08.07.2024, dismissed the appellant’s application for interim custody under Sections 6 and 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and granted custody of the minor child Devansh to his grandparents.

3. Hence the instant appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsels for respective parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the order dated 08.07.2024 is illegal, contrary to law, and based on conjectures and surmises. The trial court committed a grave error in rejecting the appellant’s application for interim custody of her minor son.

5.1. He contends that upon the death of her husband, the appellant became the natural guardian of her minor son Devansh under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and therefore custody ought to have been granted to her. The impugned order is contrary to settled legal principles governing natural guardianship, with no disqualification under Section 6 being applicable to the appellant.

5.2. He also points out that the respondents coerced the appellant into signing stamp papers and unlawfully sold a house at Bh