VIJENDRA KHARE Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal arises out of the order dated 3.12.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I Panna in Guardianship Case No. 2 of 1994. allowing the application of the respondent filed under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') restoring the custody of the minor son to the respondent.

(2.) On 22.5.1994 the respondent, husband of late Rita Khare, who was a teacher in the Government School, moved an application under Section 10 of the Act before the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Panna for restoration of the custody of his minor son Mohil. In the petition the respondent alleged that Smt. Rita Khare was his legally wedded wife and a son named Mohil was born to her out of the wedlock. Rita Khare died on 15.6.1993 in Chhatarpur Hospital leaving behind her son Mohil aged about seven months. After the death of Rita Khare the respondent handed over the custody of his minor son to the appellant No. 1, his mother-in-law, i.e. mother of late Rita Khare, to take care of his son, as there was no one to take care of his minor son during his absence while he was on his official duties.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the appellant No. 1, mother-in-law of the respondent, contending that at time of the death of her daughter, her son Mohil was only few months old and the appellant No. 1 brought the boy for his nourishment at her place. The respondent never visited the boy nor he ever bothered to enquire about the welfare of his son Mohil. The respondent was more interested in encashing GPF and OIS amount payable or account of the death of his wife in harness than the welfare of his son and he moved an application in the Court of District Judge. Chhatarpur for grant of succession certificate in respect of debt and sureties of his wife Rita Khare. The appellants intervened in the petition and made a request that the debt and sureties payable on account of the death of Rita Khare should be deposited in Fixed Deposit Scheme in any nationalised bank in the .name of her minor son Mohil and the respondent be not allowed to withdraw the amount until the boy attains the age of his majority. She further contended that Mohil is aged only two years and he is happily living with her and getting love and affection and proper care. The boy would not get the same amount of love and affection and care at the place of his father/respondent on account of the preoccupation of the respondent in his official duties.