ARUN GUPTA Vs. S K GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F.A.Os. 111 and 122/86 arise out of an order passed by the Guardian Court giving guardianship of child Rahul to mother Mrs. Arun Gupta and that of child Paras to husband S.K. Gupta. Both the husband and wife, in their respective appeals have prayed to set aside the impugned orders and have demanded the custody of both the children. I have dismissed both the appeals on 1.4.1987. The reasons are now stated. The divorce petition between the parties is pending.

(2.) In FAO 111/86, filed by the wife, two principal submissions are made. The first is that in the welfare of the children it is necessary that both of them are brought up together for their proper development, and separating one child from another is detrimental to their interest. The second submission is that one of the sisters of the husband is mentally retarded since birth and as the husband goes out for his duties, it will not be in the interest and in the welfare of the child to leave him with a mentally regarded person.

(3.) The argument that both the children should stay together and be brought up together is appreciable. Even the husband does not dispute this proposition. In an ideal environment which is, of course, a natural environment, if both the children can live together as it will ensure them better development and welfare. However, since the father and the mother are at loggerheads and divorce petition is pending between them, there are difficulties in directing this solution. As regards the wife's contention that one of the sisters of the husband is mentally retarded (in fact it was even argument that she is of unsound mind and is not educated at all), there is no evidence on record to establish this fact. I have been taken through the evidence of the husband's father, mother and the independent witnesses. What has come on the record is that she suffered some illness in the childhood and, therefore, she could not pursue her education. The trial Court was quite right in holding that according to Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act the father is the natural guardian and he should not be displaced unless there is evidence to show that the welfare of the child is not safe in the hands of the father. The evidence further shows that the husband's father and mother stay with the husband Being the grandparents they will naturally look after the child. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.