VANDANA PAL Vs. DHARMENDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous appeal under Sec. 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been preferred by appellant- wife assailing ex parte order dtd. 23/2/2024 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in RCSHM No.29 of 2021, whereby the application filed by respondent -husband under Sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been allowed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to present appeal, in short, are that respondent- husband filed an application under Sec. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, pleading that his marriage was solemnized with appellant according to Hindu customs and rites on 29th of April, 2007 in the City of Gwalior. From their marital relationship, a son, Mayank Pal was born on 26- 09-2008. It was further pleaded that he is residing in Narmada Colony, Gandhi Road, Gwalior while appellant is residing in Chandra Nagar, in front of Double Tower, Koteshwar Road, Gwalior for the last five years. Appellant works in Hotel Radission, City Centre, Gwalior. Since marriage, behaviour of appellant towards him has not been cordial. When his wife- appellant became pregnant, she was not happy and told him and his family that she wants abortion. On 26th of September, 2008 appellant reluctantly gave birth to son, Mayank at Grover Hospital, Morar, Gwalior. All expenses were borne by him and his family. The appellant used to leave minor son with his mother and go to her parent's home without his consent or knowledge. When appellant's maternal uncle passed away, she left the minor son and went to her parents' house, not returned for 15 days. She used obscene language in front of minor child while talking to him and his family. Without informing him and his family, she used to leave minor son and go to Bhopal, Ujjain and Mumbai. Her intention from the time of marriage was not to have a happy married life with him or to give birth to a child. She also filed a false report against him and his family under Sec. 498-A of IPC in which the trial Court acquitted him and his family as the charges were not found proved beyond reasonable doubt. She does not have time for her son and the minor son Mayank is being adversely affected by her character, jeoparadizing his future.

(3.) Further, in the application, it was pleaded on behalf of respondent that he works in a private job and earns a monthly income. He is willing to bear all the expenses of minor son Mayank, if he is given custody of minor son. After he goes to work, all members of his family are available and fully capable to take care of minor son. He and his entire family are educated family. He is the father of minor son and being natural guardian, has the natural right to keep his son Mayank with him. He is ready to fully cooperate in making the future of his minor son. Appellant works in a private hotel due to which she does not have any time to spend with his son and is unable to take proper care of him, which is hindering the proper development of his minor son. Being the natural father and guardian of minor son according to Hindu law, he has the legal right to obtain custody of minor son Mayank. Therefore, sought for custody of minor son.