SHAILESH KHANDELWAL Vs. MEENAKSHI KHANDELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/non-applicant against the order dated 13-7-2010 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Guardian and Wards case No. 7/2010.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are as under:

(3.) Shri B.P. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the Respondent is working and living alone at Hyderabad, whereas minor was living with Appellant at Raurkela. Looking to the nature, place and timings of her job, it was not possible for her to look after and take care of the child. Her parents are also not in a position to maintain and look after the child and due to this, they have handed over custody of minor to the Appellant. The minor being of the age of 7 years and the Appellant being her father, is her natural guardian and the child was in fact in his legal custody through out the period. The Appellant is maintaining the child properly, giving her proper education in a well reputed school of Raipur, providing all the facilities and comfort to help her in her intellectual, cultural and social development in the life, also caring for her physical comfort and moral values. Looking to the overall circumstances, welfare of the child is in keeping her with him. Learned trial Court has seriously erred in allowing Respondent's application. Learned trial Court has passed the order impugned ignoring all the relevant provisions of the Act of 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956'). Even the learned trial Court has not made any attempt to obtain preference of the child although the minor is old enough to form her intelligent preference. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sheila B. Das v. P.R. Sugasree, 2006 3 SCC 62, Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla, 2010 4 SCC 409 and Vishnu and Ors. v. Jaya, 2010 6 SCC 733.