DINESH KUMAR TAMTA Vs. KAMLA SHAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital (Camp Court Haldwani) in Misc. Civil Case No. 23 of 2012 "Smt. Kamla Shail v/s. Dinesh Kumar Tamta", whereby the appellant has been directed to handover the custody of his son to his natural guardian and mother within a month. It is the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the minor child is getting education, stood first, and has obtained 95 % marks in his last school result, which goes to show that he is getting better education and is being maintained well by the appellant -father. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the respondent -wife left her matrimonial home in the year 2009 and since then, their son is living with his father -appellant along with grandmother. The grandmother is very much affectionate with her grandson and so is the grandson towards his grandmother. The respondent has never cared for her child from the very inception and left the male child with the appellant in the year 2009. He was fed artificially by his grandmother since his birth. The son (Kartikey) is not interested in living with his mother. When he (son, Kartikey) was operated for a major surgery, the respondent never cared to attend him and even did not bother to go to the Hospital. He is 14 years old as of now (on the date appeal was filed i.e. 08.05.2014) and therefore, he cannot be compelled to go with his mother. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gita Hariharan (Ms) and another v/s. Reserve Bank of India and another, reported in : (1999) 2 SCC 228 : (AIR 1999 SC 1149), and cited some of the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 in support of his contention.

(2.) Appellant and respondent have one son and one daughter. The respondent is a Leeturer in a local College at Haldwani. The appellant is a Branch Manager in the District Cooperative Bank. The respondent left her matrimonial home on the pretext that she was physically and mentally harassed by her in -laws. She set the criminal law into motion against the appellant and others in a local Court at Haldwani. Allegedly, me respondent was ousted from her matrimonial home. At present, she is living at her parental home with her daughter since 18.10.2009.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that since the respondent is a Teacher, therefore, she is always interested in wellbeing of her children. The grandmother of the ward (Kartikey) is unable to look after the ward. The appellant embezzled money from the bank, was arrested and since then, he is in -judicial detention. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is getting approximately Rs. 30,000/ - per month, as carry home salary.