PREM VATI Vs. NIRMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 10, 1982 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the respondent-mother was declared to be the lawful guardian of her minor son Ashu.

(2.) The respondent-mother filed a petition on 14.1.1985 under section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act for declaring her to be the guardian of the minor and for the custody of the minor. It was pleaded that she was married to Vipin Kumar Jain on 5,2.1965 at Delhi according to Hindu rites. The marriage was consumated and a son was born on 9.II.1968, and was named Ashu. Her husband died on 4.10.1974 and at the time of his death, she was staying with her father at Shakurbasti, Delhi. She was informed about his death after the funeral ceremony. It was further pleaded that the appellants, i.e. the mother, the brother and sisters of her deceased husband want to deprive her of the custody of her only son Ashu. She pleaded that she was a teacher having sufficient income to maintain and educate her son and her parents and brothers were well settled and were in a position to bear her personal expenses. It was further stated that she being the natural guardian of her minor son was entitled to his custody. She pleaded that in spile of intervention by common relations and friends the appellants refused to deliver the custody of the minor to her and thereby committed wrong. They went to the extent of telling the school authorities where the minor was studying that the mother of the minor was dead.

(3.) The petition was contested by the appellants. It was pleaded in the written statement that Vipin Kumar Jain died when the minor was only 10 months old. Since then the minor has been living with them and the respondent-mother never tried to know his welfare and she never claimed the custody of the minor for such a long time. The minor was properly being looked after and had all the facilities of life. The uncle who was looking after the minor was a Scientist and was drawing a salary of more than Rs. 1100.00 per month and the other appellants were running a private educational school earning sufficient to maintain the minor.