KIRAN AJIT LAKHANI Vs. AJIT HARIRAM LAKHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard advocates for the appllant/mother and respondent/father. Appeal no. 692 of 2003 is filed by the mother. The mother had filed a petition claiming custody of the child Girisha. That petition was dismissed. Access was given to the mother during holidays and school vacation. The order of dismissal of petition was passed by the 4th Additional district Judge, Thane on 10-05-2002. By the time, the appeal was filed and it has come for hearing today, the child Girisha attains the age of 13 years. Therefore on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1973 sc 2090 (Rosy Jacob Vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal) the mother claims that the custody should be given to her. My attention was specifically drawn by the counsel for the mother to para 16 of the judgment which is as under :-"16. The respondent's contention that the Court under the Divorce Act had granted custody of the two younger children to the wife on the ground of their being of tender age, no longer holds good and that, therefore, their custody must be handed over to him appears to us to be misconceived. The age of the daughter at present is such that she must need the constant company of a grown-up female in the house genuinely interested in her welfare. Her mother is in the circumstances the best company for her. The daughter would need her mother's advice and guidance on several matters of importance. It has not been suggested at the bar that any grown-up woman closely related to maya alias Mary would be available in the husband's house for such motherly advicp and guidance. But this apart, even from the point of view of her education, in our opinion, her custody with the wife would be far more beneficial than her custody with the husband. The youngest son would also, in our opinion, be much better looked after by his mother than by his father who will have to work hard to make a mark in his profession. He has quite clearly neglected his profession and we have no doubt that if he devotes himself whole-heartedly to it he is sure to find his place fairly high up in the legal profession. "

(2.) The counsel for the appellant/ mother, in addition, contended that Girisha is about 13 years of age and she is at a stage of age where she requires company and care of her mother for her physical, mental, emotional and psychological developments. She also contended that there is no female member in the family of the respondent/father now. The mother of the respondent, who was available at the time of passing of the order, is now dead.

(3.) This prayer is strongly opposed by the counsel for the respodent/father. According to the learned counsel for the respodent/father, the child has been interviewed four times by the Judges of this Court and the child during these interviews, has expressed her opposition to go to the mother. He also contended that even though the mother of the respondent is dead, there are four uncles residing in the same building, their wives and daughters are capable of looking after and are also looked after the welfare of the child girisha. He also contended that the respondent/ father has engaged or appointed a Governess to look after the child. His further contention was that the school is just near the house of the respondent/father and, for all these arrangements, if the custody of the child with the father is disturbed, that will affect the child adversely.