[2026:RJ-JD:11105-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3116/2025

1. Ravi Godara S/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Silwala Khurd, Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.

2. Santro W/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Silwala Khurd, Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.

3. Ram Pratap S/o Preetpal, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Silwala Khurd, Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.

4. Anita D/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Silwala Khurd, Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.

----Appellants Versus Balwant S/o Ram Pratap, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Kanwani, Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Balvinder Singh for Mr. Shardul Singh Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dixit Panwar for Mr. Rakesh Matoria HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order(Oral)

06/03/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. Maternal family of the minor son of the respondent/father is in appeal assailing final order and judgment dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Hanumangarh in Case no.88/2023 whereby an application filed by the respondent-father under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking restoration of the custody of his minor son was allowed.

2. Facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the respondent filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the learned Family Court, Hanumangarh seeking custody of his minor son, Gagan. The respondent was married to Suman, daughter of Rampratap/respondent no.3, and from the said marriage a son, Gagan, was born on 30.07.2018. Suman died on 30.09.2022 due to a heart attack. After her death, the minor child came to reside with the appellants, who are his maternal relatives, and the custody of the child remained with them despite the respondent seeking his custody.

2.1 The appellants opposed the respondent’s application before the Family Court and alleged that Suman had been subjected to harassment by the respondent prior to her death and that the respondent had assaulted the minor child after her demise. They further alleged that the respondent is addicted to alcohol, frequently remains away from home, and that his mother is physically handicapped and unable to take care of the child. The appellants stated that the minor has been residing with his maternal grandparents and relatives who are providing him with care and education, and that he has been admitted to an English-

medium school.

2.2 The learned Family Court, Hanumangarh thereafter framed issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. By judgment dated 08.07.2025, the learned Family Court allowed the respondent’s application and directed that the custody of the minor Gagan be handed over to the respondent within 60 days.

2.3 Hence, this instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Family Court committed a grave error in allowing the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 vide judgment dated 08.07.2025 solely on the ground that the respondent, being the father, is the natural guardian of the minor Gagan. It is submitted that the Court failed to consider the allegations that the deceased Suman had been subjected to harassment by the respondent and that soon after her death the respondent had assaulted the minor child, following which the appellants, being the maternal relatives, took the child into their care and have since been looking after him.

3.1. It is further argued that the learned Family Court failed to give due weight to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child. According to the appellants, the respondent is a habitual drunkard and unemployed, while the minor’s grandmother is physically disabled and his grandfather is suffering from cancer, leaving no capable person in the respondent’s household to properly care for the child. In contrast, the appellants claim to be providing the minor with p