VEERKALA Vs. JAIWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal From Order is directed against an order dated 19.7.1991 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, on an application under Section 7/39 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1880. By this order, the learned Judge allowed the application of the maternal-grandmother of the minor child and allowed the prayer for removal of the guardship previously appointing applicant Smt. Veerkala. The father of the minor child, Varun Kumar, died on 12.8.1982. The said minor Varun Kumar left with his mother his parental home and is living with his maternal-grand-mother since then. An application was moved by Smt. Veerkala Devi, grand-mother (paternal) for her appointment as the guardian of the minor. The said application was allowed ex-parte by the order dated 2.8.1985. At the time of passing of the ex-parte order, the child was with mother and was living with the maternal-grand-mother for more than 3 years. The paternal grand-mother, Smt. Veerkala Devi had not taken any steps or aared to have the custody of the child during these three years. In the year, 1985, the mother of the minor child, Smt. Shalini Devi, remarried. It is stated that before the death, her husband had desired that she might remarry in case he died. After remarriage of Smt. Shalini Devi, an application was moved by respondent Smt. Jaiwati, maternal-grand-mother of the child, for appointing her as guardian under Section 7 of the Guardianship and Wards Act and also for the order of removal of Smt. Veerkala Devi as guardian in accordance with Section 39 of the Act. The learned trial judge allowed the application of the opposite party, Smt. Jaiwati Devi and also passed orders removing the guardian previously appointed, Smt. Veerkala Devi, paternal grand-mother of the child. The reasons for allowing the application as recorded is that the child had been living with the grand-mother (maternal) and the mother for about 3 years and even after the remarriage of her visits the minor children occassionally and takes care for the minor child at the place of her mother, and therefore, the learned Judge recorded finding that in the interest and for the welfare of the minor child it was necessary that the child, who was brought up in the environment and under the care of his maternal-grand-mother since 1982 when the death of minor's father took place, he considered that it would be in the interest of the child that the guardianship may be given to the maternal-grand-mother who is the best person to look after the interest and welfare of the minor child till he attains majority.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the ex-parte order passed in 1982 appointing Smt. Veerkala, as guardian of the minor was not challenged. He further submitted that the order of removal passed by the Court below under Section 39 of the aforesaid Act was also not warranted. The perusal of provisions of Section 39(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act clearly show that a person whose continuous failure to perform the duties of trust may be established, that may be a ground for removal of such a person as guardian. It is not disputed that since 1982 the minor child remained with the mother and the maternal-grand-mothcr and even after passing of the ex-parte order in favour of the appellant, Smt. Veerkala, no attempts were made to secure custody of the minor child, or to take care for his welfare. It appears there was no interest or actual desire to serve as guardian of the minor during the said period. It amounts to nothing but continued failure to perform the duties of the trust. The order of the Court below cannot be upset on the ground that the order was not challenged Rather, it is evident that the Court below exercising powers under Section 39 of the Act considered it fit and just in the circumstances of the case to appoint maternal grand-mother as the guardian of the minor child.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant, I do not consider that there was any error of law or jurisdiction or procedural defect which may call for interference in the order impugned. The order passed by the Court below is in the welfare of the minor child and in these circumstances it is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere.