SANJAY Vs. SUKWARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against order dtd. 24/7/2017 passed by the Family Court, Baikunthpur Distt. Korea (CG) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 13/2016 (CIS No. 6/2017) whereby application filed by the appellant/husband under Sec. 7 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1890') read with Sec. 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1956'), for grant of custody of his minor son, was dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage of the appellant/ husband was solemnized with respondent/wife on 7/5/2009. They have been blessed with a son namely Ashish, who was aged about 6 years at the time of filing of the application. It is alleged that the respondent/wife lived with the appellant only for about 10 months, thereafter, she left company of appellant and efforts made by the appellant to bring her back went in vain and she is residing with her parents at their village. It has been further pleaded that on an application being filed by the respondent, earlier the husband was giving Rs.1,500.00 per month for her maintenance, which was subsequently increased to the tune of Rs.1,700.00 per month. Thus, she is not having source of income to maintain herself and their son, whereas the appellant is having government job and he is natural father of the child. Hence, he can take better care for welfare of their child in respect of his study, health and other needs of life, therefore, the appellant has requested to give custody of their minor child Ashish from respondent/wife.

(3.) In reply, the respondent/wife has accepted that she is residing along with her child in her parental home at village Dhodibahra, where she delivered their son Ashish, but she has been compelled by the appellant to part him, as she was subjected to cruelty on various counts by the appellant. After delivery of child, appellant has never come to meet them, divorce proceeding is also going on between them. Appellant has never taken care of them and when she filed maintenance application, only thereafter, he is giving amount of maintenance and only to escape from paying maintenance to them, he has filed aforesaid application. She has further pleaded that she is mother of the child, capable to maintain him and taking proper care of him, therefore, the application filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected.