AKSHI YADAV Vs. PRADEEP YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The philosophy of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 took its birth from the Roman era upto the present day, where a duty has been casted upon the State to take care of class of persons, who are incompetent or incapable to take care of themselves. This imperfection was a consequence of their immaturity, lack of intellect or lack of capacity or exercise of discretion which was on account of their age. Under the Hindu mythology, it was the King, whose responsibility was to protect the estate of infants. The said protection as assigned to the Kings initially by usages is now being taken over by the Courts in the exercise of their sovereign powers. Thus, the basic intention and the paramount factor to be borne in mind is the welfare of the child. No other surrounding circumstances would play any significant role, while considering the application for the grant of guardianship.

(2.) The appellant in the instant appeal is the wife of the applicant (respondent herein) whose application under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been allowed by the Additional Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar whereby the custody of the minor son, namely Manvir has been granted, to the respondent in the appeal, by the impugned judgment dated 04.02017.

(3.) For a better scrutiny of the controversy involved, it centers around, fact, as to whether the findings recorded in the proceedings under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. for granting maintenance to the wife, children or parents, could be taken into consideration to lay down the foundation for considering the application under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, is the core issue to answered?