BAL KRISHNA PANDEY Vs. SANJEEV BAJPAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal u/S. 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 9 8-2000 passed by the then Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Case No. 70 of 1996, Bal Kishan Pande v. Sanjeev Bajpai on a petition of the appellant, for his appointment as the guardian of his minor grand-daughter, Kumari Swati (daughter's daughter) and to allow him to retain the custody of the said minor. Petition was preferred as provided under Section 10 of Chapter II of the Act relating to appointment and declaration of guardian of the minor. By the impugned judgment and order, the petition was dismissed and the appellant was directed to hand over the custody of the minor to her father, the respondent.

(2.) The relevant dates having bearing on the facts of the case are mentioned first : 8-12-1989 Smt. Sunita daughter of the appellant was married to the respondent, the father of the minor Km. Swati. 16-11-1990 Km. Swati, the first daughter was born out of the said wedlock. 19-3-1994 Km. Surati was born to the said couple. 9-11-1994 Smt. Sunita died in Nagpur on account of post abortion complication. 15-4-1996 Respondent married Smt. Usha, the present second wife in Bombay. May 1996 Km. Swati was brought to Dehradun by the appellant and was admitted in a school.

(3.) The petition was filed on 2-7-1996 with the allegations that the respondent after second marriage had shown a change in his misbehaviour and attitude in treating the minor daughter with the contempt and even gave them beating many times on petty matters, that on account of this attitude the minor daughter Km. Swati was brought to Dehradun with the consent of the respondent about two months ago so that she may be brought up and educated at Dehradun, that the appellant has retired as a Vice-Principal of a Degree College and has got his own house at Dehradun, that he has no le-gal- heir of his own except the said minor and has a capacity for bringing up the minor nicely, that in the course of time the respondent from his second wife will have children and then they will not be able to give fair treatment, love and affection to the said minor and that her welfare could be safeguarded only if the appellant retain her custody and is appointed the guardian.