NIRMAL JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act, 1890) is directed against the Judgment and order of the District Judge. Delhi dated 19th November, 1979 dismissing the appellant's application under Section 25 of the Act for a declaration that she is the guardian of her minor son and for a direction to the respondents to give his custody to her.

(2.) In her application filed on 14th January, 1975 S nt. Nirmal Jain has pleaded that she wag married to Vipan Kumar Jain on 5th February, 1965 at Delhi according to Hindu rites, that the marriage was consumated and a son was born on 9th November, 1968 who is named Ashu, that her husband died on 14th October, 1974 and at that time she was staying with her father at 68, Raja Park, Shakurbasti, Delhi, and that she was informed about his death after funeral ceremony. She has further pleaded that the respondent i.e. the mother, brothers and sisters of her deceased husband want to deprive her of the custody of her only son Ashu, that she is a teacher having sufficient income to maintain and educate her son, that her parents. and brothers who arc well settled also bear her personal expenses, that she is the natural guardian of her minor son and therefore entitled to his custody, that the respondents in spite of intervention by common relations and friends have refused to deliver custody to her, that they do not allow her to see the minor since the death of her husband, that they wrongly reported to the school authorities where minor is studying that the mother of the minor was dead, that they have no right to deprive her of his custody and that it is in the interest of the minor if he returns to her custody, she being a natural guardian.

(3.) In defence the respondents have pleaded that the application under section 25 of the Act, 1890 is not maintainable, that the appellant left her husband and minor son when he was only 10 months old, that she never came to see the child and her husband after 12th September, 1969, that she is unemployed and has no source of income and is unable to maintain even herself, that she was informed about the illness and death of her husband but she never came, that she is not entitled to the custody of the minor as he is being educated and maintained by them; that Anil Kumar respondent is employed as a Scientist in Cement Research Institute of India and getting Rs. 1141.00 per month, and that other respondents arc running a private educational school earning sufficient to maintain the minor.