RAMKUMAR SWAMI Vs. ADITYA TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants has preferred this Misc. Appeal under Section 47(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act , 1890 (for brevity, the 'Act') assailing the order dated 22.7.2019 passed by First Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in MJC No. 07/2017 (Aditya Trivedi vs. Ramkumar Swami and another), whereby the application preferred by the respondent under Section 7 of the Act for custody of his daughter has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 30.4.2012 marriage was solemnized between respondent and daughter of appellants, namely, Smt. Bharti and out of their wedlock girl Divya was born. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of filing of application under Section 7 of the Act, Divya was aged about four years. It is further alleged that soon after the marriage of the respondent, Smt. Bharti committed suicide on 2.10.2013. A false case was registered against the respondent for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and under the garb of the false FIR the appellants took daughter Divya into their custody. Thereafter the respondent has been acquitted by the trial Court in connection with the aforesaid offences and appeal against the judgment of acquittal has also been dismissed. Thus, the respondent being natural guardian of daughter Divya moved an application under Section 7 of the Act for custody of his daughter. Reply of the application has been filed by the appellants denying the averments pleaded in the application. The First Additional District Judge, Dabra framed issues and after recording evidence of the parties directed vide impugned order to the appellants to hand over forthwith the custody of daughter Divya to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants attacks the impugned order on the ground that the order is illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. The Court below has ignored the fact that daughter Divya was under her grandparent's upbringing since when she was 6 months old. The Court below has failed to consider that paramount consideration is welfare of child and the respondent is not able to provide good education, atmosphere and other facilities to the daughter and he has not made any attempt during the last five years to seek custody of his daughter. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.