PUSHPA Vs. ANSHU CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the appellants, who are grandmother and grandfather of a minor girl Km. Resha aged about 6 years, against the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2013 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut by which the Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent, the mother of child, for custody of the child.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Sumit Daga and Sri Alok Kumar Singh learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.K. Tripathi for the respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, challenging the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, submitted that the application filed by respondent being Application No.19 of 2012 was barred by principles of res-judicata in view of the fact that earlier the custody was given to appellant No.1 on the basis of a compromise dated 29th October, 2011 between the parties. It is submitted that the respondent, if aggrieved by the earlier order of the Court dated 29th October, 2011 appointing appellant No.1 as guardian, should challenge the earlier order dated 29th October, 2011 instead of filing another application. It is submitted that earlier decision dated 29th October, 2011 operated as res-judicata and the Application No.19 of 2012 was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that appellants, who are grandmother and grandfather of the child, are financially well off to take care of all the needs of the child. It is submitted that child is studying in an institution and all expenses of the child are being borne by the appellants. It is submitted that appellant No.2, who was working as Electrician in Daurala Sugar Mill, is also running a medical store from where sufficient income is received. The appellants have also taken life insurance policy in favour of the child. It is further stated that appellants have also engaged a home tutor to teach the child at home. The appellants are fully competent to take care of the child and there was no occasion to change the guardianship or to give custody of the child to the respondent.