LAWS(MPH)-1961-8-23

BHAGWATI Vs. PYARELAL

Decided On August 08, 1961
BHAGWATI Appellant
V/S
PYARELAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under the Letters Patent from an order of Sen J., confirming an order made by the Additional District Judge, Datia, by which it was directed that the appellants should hand over the minor Om Prakash to the custody of his father, the respondent in this appeal.

(2.) THE material facts are that the appellant Mst. Bhagwati is the second wife of the respondent Pyarelal. The other appellant is the father of Mst. Bhagwati. Mst. Bhagwati has two children, both boys, one aged 1 1/2 years and another of about six years of age. The respondent Pyarelal is a school teacher residing in Datia. It appears that for some time the respondent, his two wives and the two children from Mst. Bhagwati all lived together in Datia. According to the appellant Mst. Bhagwati, the respondent married her without disclosing to her the fact of his first marriage; that his first wife was ill -treating her and her children; and that, therefore, she left the respondent's house and went to live with her father in Lalitpur. On 19th December 1957 the respondent Pyarelal made an application in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Datia, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act for his appointment as the guardian of the person of the minors. On that application the Additional District Judge found after enquiry that it would be in the interest of the elder son Om Prakash that he should return to his father and that the interest of the younger son would be served if he was allowed to remain with his mother. Accordingly he made a direction for handing over the custody of Om Prakash to the respondent Pyarelal.

(3.) IN this appeal the only question raised is as to the jurisdiction of the Datia Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the respondent's application under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and to give him relief under Section 25. The appellants urged that as the minor children were living with them for nearly a year before the filing of the application by the respondent, they were ordinarily residing at Lalitpur and not at Datia.