SHEOKUMAR RAM PRASAD TIWARI Vs. SHIV RANI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 16th July 1965 of Shiv Dayal J. finally disposing of an appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE facts are simple. The minor in question is a girl named Sushila who was born on 14th January 1952. When she was about six months old, her mother died. The appellant Sheokumar, who is her father, resides at Burhanpur and was employed as a peon in the Tahsil Court at Burhanpur. As he was very often required to go out of Burhanpur on duty he after his wife's death, entrusted his minor daughter to the care of the respondents Shiv-rani Bai and Rampal who were his neighbours and with whom he was on very friendly terms. The appellant and the respondents all belong to the same community, namely, Kankubja Brahmin community. After this entrustment, Sushila was looked after and brought up by the respondents. She is still in their custody. In 1963 Sheokumar asked the respondents to return the girl to him. When they refused to do so, Sheokumar on 9th April 1964 made an application under Section 25 of the Act for restoration of sushila's custody to him alleging that the respondents had not given her proper education; that her marriage prospects depended on her education; and that he apprehended that the girl, who was approaching marriageable age, would be married away by the respondents against his wishes and without his knowledge, he also stated in his application under Section 25 that Rampal was being prosecuted for possessing illicit liquor. The learned District Judge of Khandwa, before whom the application under Section 25 was filed, allowed and directed the respondents to restore forthwith Sushila to the custody of the appellant.

(3.) THE respondents then preferred an appeal in this Court against the order of the district Judge, Khandwa. The learned Single Judge, after finding that Sheokumar's application under Section 25 was maintainable, that being the father of Sushila he was her natural guardian and that the plea of the respondents that Sushila was given in adoption was false, proceeded to consider whether it would be in the welfare of the minor to restore her custody to Sheokumar. He found that the respondents had not given her proper education; that at the age of 13 Sushila had not passed even the fifth class examination; that the appellant Sheokumar's financial condition was such that he could look after Sushila and educate her; and that it could not be said of Sheokumar that he was not otherwise a lit person for exercising his rights of guardian over Sushila. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the respondents, who had entered in the school register Sushila as daughter of Rampal, intended to deprive Sheokumar of his child Sushila for all time; and that they were not entitled to do so merely because they had brought up the girl for nearly 13 years. He observed :-