PAWAN KASHYAP Vs. SONI KASHYAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15-03-2019 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil MJC No.03/2018, by which, the learned Family Court has allowed application of respondent-mother in awarding custody of minor son-Kanha @ Basu Kashyap and daughter-Keshar @ Shreyanshi Kashyap.

(2.) Respondent-Soni Kashyap filed an application under Section 6, 7 & 8 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (In short "the Act of 1890"), before the Family Court, Bilaspur, for appointment as Guardian of her minor son-Kanha @ Basu Kashyap, aged 8 years and daughter-Keshar alias Shreyanshi Kashyap, aged 6 years on pleadings that the respondent was married to appellant and out of their wedlock, son was born on 01-11-2007 followed by birth of daughter on 09-11-2009. According to the respondent-mother, the appellant-father is drunkard and used to harass and beat her in the name of demand of dowry. On 24-05-2014, the respondent was cruelly beaten up, due to which, she sustained injury and admitted in the hospital. At that time, children were in her maternal house, but the appellant took away the daughter-Shreyanshi in the name of meeting with grandmother. On a report being made in the police station, counseling was arranged between the parties and on assurance given by the appellant that he will take due and proper care, the respondent-mother again came back to the matrimonial house. However, the appellant continued with earlier activities, therefore, she again left the matrimonial house along with her daughter. It was also pleaded that the appellant hided her son somewhere, not known to the respondent. On 21-07-2015, the appellant assaulted her father Lakhan Lal and snatched the daughter away, in respect of which also, a report was made in the police station, since then, the children are with the appellantfather. It was further pleaded that the wife of the elder brother of the appellant has also left her matrimonial house, because of cruelty meted out to her and in the house, only appellant, his elder brother and old aged sick mother were left. The appellant-father and his elder brother are drunkard and they are engaged in dailywage work and therefore, there is no arrangement of proper care and supervision to the children, in absence of capable female member in the family. Overall atmosphere in the matrimonial house is not conducive for good health, development and care of children. Respondent-mother is an educated woman. Appellant-father is not allowing respondent-mother to meet children. Cause of action arose on 19-06-2014 and 21-07-2015, when the children were snatched away and respondent-mother was deprived of her children.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the appellant-father, allegations made were denied and it was stated that as the parental house of respondent-mother is local, the respondent-mother is frequently visiting her parental house and stayed there. Children have been admitted in the school and appellant-father is taking proper care of children by providing proper education and bearing all their expenses of education. As far as injury on the body of the respondent-mother is concerned, she sustained injury due to fall. Respondent-mother has left the matrimonial house and she is not coming back, thereafter, a registered notice was given to the respondent-mother on 23-06-2014 and despite that, she did not come back. Appellant-father has stated that he is still willing to keep his wife with him, but respondent-mother is not coming back to her matrimonial house on account of trivial dispute. Reports made in the police station are false. The order of interim maintenance in a case arising out of the domestic violence, finally stand in favour of the appellant-father.