LAWS(MPH)-1960-10-13

BREJENDRA NARAYAN GANGULY Vs. CHINTA HARAN SARKAR

Decided On October 10, 1960
BREJENDRA NARAYAN GANGULY Appellant
V/S
CHINTA HARAN SARKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application under Section 25 (1) and (2) of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, made in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur. The application of the applicants was rejected by the said Court. Being aggrieved by the said decision, this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that the applicants are husband and wife and belong to Bengali Brahmin community. The applicants were the parents of three children before 11-2-1956. Their 4th child was born on 11-2-1956 in some hospital at Jabalpur. This child was a girl and was named 'Mana'. It is admitted that on the 9th day after her, birth, the child was handed over to the custody and care of the non-applicants (respondents) who also are the husband and wife. The respondents belong to the Bengali Kayastha community. This is also admitted that at the time of the handing over of the child, the relations between the parties were very cordial. The present dispute ranges round the custody of this child 'Mana'.

(3.) The case of the applicants was that at the time when Mana was born, her mother (applicant No. 2) was in a very weak state of health. She was not expected to feed the child properly. Under these circumstances the applicants were required to make suitable arrangement for getting the child properly brought up. The applicants say that ultimately they approached the respondents with the request that they may assume responsibility for bringing up the child till its mother (applicant No. 2) was in a fit state of health to assume her responsibility of nurturing the child. It is averred by the appellants (applicants) that the respondents (nonapplicants) gladly acceded to their request and brought up the child satisfactorily. About seven or eight months after however, when the applicants desired the child to be restored to them, the non-applicants on one ground or the other put off the handing over of child and ultimately, refused.