SANDEEP Vs. SUSHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-father, who is original opponent in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.39 of 2022, has challenged the order dtd. 13/07/2022 passed by the Additional District Judge-1, Nanded (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial court) below Exhibit-7 in the said application, whereby custody of minor son - Ritham of the rival parties, was ordered to be given to the present respondent - wife i.e. original applicant being an interim arrangement till fnal disposal of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.39 of 2022.

(2.) Admittedly, the material on record shows that the respondent - wife got married with appellant - husband on 25/03/2019 and she gave birth out of this wedlock to son Ritham on 23/05/2020. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties. The respondent - wife had fled an application No.159 of 2021 under Sec. 97 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kinwat for getting custody of Ritham, but it was rejected and thereafter she fled the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.39 of 2022 numbered as RJE No. 39 of 2022, wherein she fled an application Exhibit-7 for grant of interim custody of Ritham, which has been allowed by the learned trial court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant - husband strongly argued that under Sec. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 the court has to consider only welfare of child as paramount consideration and not the rights of the parties under the statute. He pointed out that the interim custody is ordered to be given to the respondent - wife only by considering her right under the statute but there is no objective analysis in the impugned order as regards to the welfare of the child. He pointed out that the judgments relied upon by the appellant - husband before the trial court were misconstrued.