RAM KRIPAL Vs. MANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Zamal Ali and Sri M. C, Chaturvedi for the respondents in F.A.F.O. No. 276 of 2005 and Sri S. K. Shukla for the appellant and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi for the respondent in F.A.F.O. No. 1530 of 2004 and have gone through the record.

(2.) F.A.F.O. No. 276 of 2005, Ram Kripal & another v. Smt. Manju has been preferred against judgment and order dated 5-3-2005 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hamirpur, in Misc. Application No. 25/74 of 2004, whereby the application moved by Smt. Manju under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 was allowed and it was directed that Shanker @ Kalloo, minor aged about 4 years, who is grandson of Ram Kripal and Smt. Bimla Devi be handed over under the guardianship of Smt. Manju sister of mother of Shanker @ Kalloo and a copy of the order dated 5-3-2005 was sent to the police station concerned for compliance.

(3.) F.A.F.O. No. 1530 of 2004 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18-3-2004 passed by District Judge, Hamirpur, in Case No. 15/70 of 2001, Smt. Manju v. Dharmendra Kumar and two others, whereby Smt. Manju Gupta was appointed as guardian of minor Shanker @ Kalloo and a direction was made that she would take care of his studies, living, medical treatment, etc. and will behave in such a manner, which is not prejudicial to the interest of the minor Shanker @ Kalloo. The fact of the case as revealed from the record is that Smt. Pawan Kumari was mother of the minor Shanker @ Kalloo and was daughter of Smt. Indo Devi. Smt. Pawan Kumari was married with Dharmendra in 1996. Dharmendra is son of appellants Ram Kripal and Smt. Bimla Devi. Smt. Pawan Kumari was mother of minor Shanker @ Kalloo and sister of Smt. Manju Devi. It is said that Smt. Pawan Kumari died in unnatural circumstances inside the house of the appellants on 15-6-2001. FIR was lodged by Smt. Indu Devi that demand for dowry being not satisfied her death was caused by the appellants of this case and his son Dharmendra. S.T. No. 68 of 2001, State v. Dharmendra and others and S.T. No. 88 of 2001, State v. Smt. Bimla Devi bearing Crime No. 53 of 2001 proceeded under Section 498A and 304B of I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Binwar, district Hamirpur. Both the sessions trials were decided by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act) Hamirpur, on 3-5-2003. The appellants Ram Kripal, Smt. Bimla Devi and Dharmendra and one another were convicted under Section 304B and 498A, I.P.C. They have preferred appeal, which is pending in this Court. The appellants were enlarged on bail and Dharmendra Kumar, father of the minor Shanker @ Kalloo is still in jail. Smt. Indo Devi moved application against Dharmendra Kumar, Smt. Bimla Devi in the Court of District Judge, Hamirpur, under Section 7/10 Guardian and Wards Act that Shanker @ Kalloo whose mother had died at the residence of Dharmendra be given in her custody as she was his grand maternal aunt. It was said that neither the life of Shankar @ Kalloo was safe in the hands of his father, grandfather and grandmother nor it was in his welfare. During the pendency of the case under Section 7/10 of the Guardian and Wards Act Smt. Indo Devi died on 15-7-2001 and Smt. Manju, sister of Pawan Kumari was substituted in place of Smt. Indo Devi. The application was allowed by the Court below and Smt. Manju Devi, Mausi of the minor Shanker @ Kalloo was appointed as his guardian. Thereafter she moved application that Shanker @ Kalloo be given in her guardianship, which was allowed. Aggrieved from both these orders abovementioned two appeals have been preferred. Affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. Smt. Manju Devi has submitted her allegation in the counter affidavit, which has been denied by the appellants. Ram Kripal in his affidavit has deposed that he is grandfather of the minor Shanker @ Kalloo and Smt. Bimla Devi is his grandmother. He is in-charge Principal in Junior High School, Bajehta, Hamirpur, and receives pay of about Rs. 11,000/- per month. Besides it he has agricultural land in village Chhani Khurd, district Hamirpur, which yields income of Rs. 5000/- per month. In Paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in FAFO No. 276 of 2005 he deposed that the appellants are prepared to execute the deed in favour of the minor grandson Shanker and also prepared to furnish security in the nature of bank guarantee/fixed deposit etc. in the name of minor Shanker for his welfare and interest. In Paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit he deposed that Smt. Manju has two children and therefore it would not be in the interest of the minor Shanker to keep him with Smt. Manju. In Para 8 of the affidavit he deposed that he has got three sons they are Dharmendra, Akhilesh and Satish and Akhilesh has two daughters. His third son is not married and his son Dharmendra is in Jail, who has only one son Kalloo. Thus in his family there is only grandson who is Shanker @ Kalloo. It is also deposed that the minor Shanker is admitted in Kinder Garten School.