RAM KAWAL YADAV Vs. PRATIBHA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal is directed against Order dated 8-2-1999 in Guardian Case No. 2 of 1998 by I Additional District Judge, Shahdol dismissing the petitioner/appellant's application under Section 6 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), praying that he be appointed as guardian of person and property of his son, minor Harikrishan Yadav.

(2.) The facts not in dispute are that the parties are Hindus. The respondent is the wife of appellant. The minor Harikrishan is their son. He was born on 11-2-1987 at Shahdol. It is also not in dispute that the parties are now living separately. The petitioner/appellant had earlier also filed a petition for appointment as guardian of the minor as well as his sisters, the other children of the parites, which was registered as Guardians and Wards Case No. 5/1991. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court on 23/11/1992. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 73 of 1993 preferred by the petitioner/appellant was also dismissed on 29-11-1996.

(3.) The averments of the petitioner/appellant in his petition were that since the relations between the parties embittered, therefore, they are residing separately since a long time. The respondent had taken away their son, minor Harikrishan along with her to West Bengal. It was also averred that the respondent is not financially capable to properly bring up the minor. It was averred in the above context that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and her minor children, which had been ultimately allowed and maintenance has been granted to the respondent and the minor children. It was averred that the respondent is a lady of easy virtues and resides in a village. The interest of the minor would be adversely affected, in case he is permitted to live with the respondent. It was further averred that the petitioner is financially capable to properly bring up his son, minor Harikrishan and to educate him. It was, therefore, prayed that in the interest and for the welfare of the minor Harikrishan, he should be given in the custody of the petitioner/appellant.