ANKITA JANKAJIRAO JADHAV Vs. SAMBHHAJIRAO RANGAJIRAO JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute represented by this appeal is about the guardianship and custody of minor Ranoji who is the son of the appellant and grandson of the respondents. By the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2005 impugned in the appeal, the Family Court, Mumbai allowed the petition filed by the respondents under The Guardianship and Wards Act for being appointed Guardian of Ranoji and for his permanent custody.

(2.) THE appellant was married to Jankoji, the son of the respondents on 27th February, 1996. After marriage, both started residing with the respondents at Pune. Ranoji was born on 17th November, 1996. For the purpose of his delivery, the appellant had gone to her parents house at Gwalior. She returned with Ranoji in April 1997 and resumed residence with the respondents. Unfortunately, Jankoji died in a motor accident on 25th May, 1997. Even thereafter, the appellant continued to reside with the respondents. Ranoji had been admitted to playgroup in Pune in June 1999. In May, 2000 the appellant took Ranoji to Gwalior and was there until April, 2002. Ranoji completed his Junior K.G. at Gwalior. Then in May 2002, it was decided by her and her parents that it was in the best interest of Ranoji that he resides at Pune with the respondents. Therefore, the appellant returned to Pune and Ranoji was admitted to the Abhinav High School, Pune where he is studying till date. On 15th November, 2003 the appellant went to Gwalior leaving Ranoji with the respondents. Thereafter, instead of returning to Pune she sent advocates notice dated 24th September, 2004 demanding some properties and custody of Ranoji. The respondents then on 12th October, 2004 filed the petition seeking their appointment as guardian of Ranoji and his permanent custody. The appellant did not appear in the petition which was finally allowed by the impugned judgment and order. During the pendency of the petition, the custody of Ranoji continued with the respondents.

(3.) THE respondents contended in their petition that the appellant is an extremely simple person with a low I.Q. She is physically and mentally weak. She has no means of earning and is not able to look after even herself independently. The respondents have been looking after Ranoji since his infancy. The respondent no.2, the grandmother has done the entire nursing of Ranoji. Respondent no.1 is a well educated person holding degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and can look after the education of Ranoji. As compared to the parents of the appellant, the respondents are financially better off. They have plan to leave their entire property to Ranoji in future. It was also the contention of the respondents that the language predominantly used in Gwalior is Hindi, whereas Ranoji knows Marathi and English. In that circumstance also, it would be more convenient and comfortable for him to take his education at Pune which undisputedly is a good centre of education. As against this, the appellant contends that she being the mother of Ranoji is his natural guardian and hence entitled to his custody.