RAMESH NARAYAN RAO WANDHILE Vs. RAJNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Dr. Ramesh Narayanrao Wandhile is the father and the respondent Smt. Rajni is the mother of the minor ward Ku. Suwarna. The appellant and the respondent were married on 29-5-1970 at Wardha. Out of this union, a daughter Suwarna was born on 8-4-1971. The appellant is a doctor by profession and caries on his practice at Gond Pipri in tahsil and district Chandrapur. He filed a petition claiming custody of Ku. Suwarna under section 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act (1890) read with section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956).

(2.) On the date the application was filed by the appellant seeking custody of the minor child Ku. Suwarna, she was more then 5 years old. The relations between the appellant and the respondent did not remain smooth soon after the marriage and the respondent was required to leave the house. She went to Wardha and stayed with her parents. A petition for restitution of conjugal rights came to be instituted by the appellant. As a result of the compromise reached between the parties, the respondent, alongwith the child, again went to reside with the appellant. However, the stay was short and the respondent had to return back to Wardha alongwith the child Suwarna and both of them are staying at Wardha since then. The appellant had also instituted proceedings for judicial separation which was pending at the time the application seeking custody of the child Suwarna was instituted. it is also not in dispute that the respondent had moved the Court claiming maintenance for the child. Though the suit was initially dismissed, it came to be decreed by the appellate Court. According to this decree, the appellant was to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 100 p.m. till she attains the age of 5 years.

(3.) It was the case of the appellant that the respondent was not in a position to maintain the child Ku Suwarna in good condition in so far as her feeding, clothing, health and education were concerned. It is also stated that the respondent's father's financial condition is not so satisfactory and he cannot part with the amount for maintenance of the child except by way of loan. The respondent is required to live at the mercy of the father and other inmates who cannot have that much affinity for the minor Ku Suwarna. The appellant further claimed that he being a Doctor was the best person to look after the health of Ku. Suwarna as she could be under his constant care and supervision. The step mother and sister can well look to the comforts and health of the child. Lastly it was contended that the appellant being a natural guardian of the minor, the custody of the minor Ku. Suwarna should be entrusted to him.