HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1243/2025 Raja Ram S/o Shiv Ram, Aged About 45 Years, 24/07 Railway Colony Dya Basti Delhi ----Appellant Versus Smt. Rachna Arora D/o Meghraj Arora, Barkat Colony Ward Number 35 Behind Fort Hanumangarh Town Tehsil And District Hanumangarh Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jeetender Singh Khichi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order(Oral)

18/03/2026 Per:- Arun Monga, J

1. Appellant-father seeks quashing of order dated 02.01.2025 passed by Learned Family Court, Hanumangarh, wherein application filed under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Acts, 1890, for custody of his minor son was rejected by holding that the child’s welfare lies in continuing with the respondent-

mother.

2. Succinctly speaking, the brief facts of the case, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the appellant and respondent got married on 09.11.2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of this wedlock, they were blessed with a son. After some time of the marriage, family disputes arose between the parties on trivial issues, which led to dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. After dissolution of marriage, the respondent took the minor son with her to her parental house.

2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the family environment of the respondent is not conducive for the proper upbringing of the minor, in as much as the wife of her brother has instituted criminal proceedings against the respondent’s family members. It was further contended that the respondent, being employed with the Nagar Palika, has left the minor son in the care of his maternal grandfather and grandmother, and that his upbringing is not being attended to adequately. On the other hand, the appellant, who is residing in Delhi, is in a position to properly nurture and maintain the child while ensuring adequate education and other necessary facilities; therefore, it is prayed that the custody of the minor son be entrusted to the appellant

2.2 After service of summons, the respondent filed a written statement in reply to the application filed by the appellant, contending that the parties never resided at Hanumangarh and had, in fact, resided at Ajmer after marriage. It was further averred that the marriage came to be dissolved on account of the appellant’s habit of consuming liquor. The respondent also instituted criminal proceedings against the appellant, which were subsequently settled with the intervention of respected members of society. It was further submitted that the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, wherein it was agreed between the parties that the minor son would remain in the custody of the respondent.

2.3 The learned Family Court framed two issues. The first issue relates to the welfare and interest of the minor child in the custody of the respondent. In support of evidence, the statements of AW-1 Rajaram, AW-2 Honey Setiya, and AW-3 Devendra Singh Kashyap were recorded, and in defence, documentary evidence including Exhibit-1 (copy of FIR), Exhibit-2 (charge sheet), Exhibit-3 (statements of witnesses in the dowry case), Exhibit-04 to 06 (application under Section 09 of the HM Act), and documents marked as Exhibit 07 to 13 were produced. In support of the defence evidence, NAW-01 Rachna Arora herself was examined. The learned Court below did not consider the actual as well as factual aspects of the matter and, vide its order dated 02.01.2025, dismissed the application filed by the appellant-

applicant.

2.4 Hence, this instant appeal.

3. We have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsels.

4. First and foremost reference may be had to Para 19 of the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 passed by Learned Family Court, Hanumangarh. English translation of the relevant part reads as under:-

“19. Under the Guardians and Wards Act, the custody of a minor child is to