MULJIBHAI NARANBHAI MAKWANA Vs. NA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 189 is preferred by the appellants, who happens to be grand parents of the minor - Sejal, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dtd. 7/2/2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar in Misc. Civil Application No.13 of 2020, by which the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed by the original appellants, therefore, the present First Appeal is preferred for appointment of guardian of minor - Sejal Jagdishbhai Makwana.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Heard learned advocates Mr. Bhavin B. Thakar for the appellants. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts produced on record and passed the order without applying his mind. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the adoption deed executed by Jagdishbhai Muljibhai Makwana vide Exh.22 in proper perspective. He has submitted that the son of the present appellants - Jagdishbhai Muljibhai Makwana is handicap, who has already given consent for the application filed by the appellants despite that the trial Court has not considered the case of the present appellants. He has further submitted the Ashmita - mother of the minor child has also given consent at Exh.33 in the application. He has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the mental disability certificate of minor - Sejal, which was produced at Exh.25 before the learned Trial Court. He has further submitted that if the learned Trial Court has not considered the aspect of welfare of the child in the facts and circumstances of the present case as father of the girl - Jagdish is 50% disabled and he is doing some miscellaneous labour work and he is not having steady income. He has submitted that it is also relevant to note that the mother of the child is separated with the father long back and also got remarried with other person. In such set of facts and circumstances, the present appellants happens to be grand father and grand mother and appellant No.1 is also getting regular income by way of pension. The future of the child - Sejal, who is otherwise having mental disability can be protected.