KOUSTAV DEY Vs. SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement passed by the learned District Judge of Paschim Medinipur in case no. 15 of 2009 of Act VIII, wherein learned District Judge has been pleased to appoint the petitioner/respondent(herein after referred to as respondent only) as the guardian of the person and property of minor Master Shreyan Dey. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgement of learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, the opposite party/appellant, being father of Shreyan Dey, has preferred this appeal on amongst other grounds that the findings of learned District Judge in law as well as in fact are not correct and that learned Trial Judge acted in excess of its jurisdiction by not adhering to the order of remand Dated August 14, 2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in FMA No.655 of 2012.

(2.) The further grounds of appeal are that learned Trial Judge did not adhere to the principles for adjudicating an application under section 7 of Act VIII of 1890 and the principles as enunciated under Section 19 of the said Act. In short, learned Trial Judge without having specific observation/finding, about the fitness of the appellant, in having the custody of the minor, has erroneously repeated the earlier order passed by learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur. The fact of the case is that Somarani and Koustav(appellant) got married in the month of December, 2007. Soma was a school teacher. Soma gave delivery of a male child on 4th December, 2008 out of her wedlock with Koustav. Admittedly, Soma and Koustav were residing in a rented house at Suranankar in the House of one Adwitya Jana within PS-Panskura. It has been alleged that Soma was subjected to mental torture by her husband, mother in law, sister of her mother in law and the husband of the sister of her mother in law since her marriage but somehow Soma tried to adjust herself and used to stay with her husband.

(3.) On 05.06.2009 the father of Soma was informed over telephone by the wife of Adwitya Jana, the landlord of Soma and Koustav that his daughter has fallen ill. On receipt of such information the respondent visited the rented premises of Soma and found her dead with ligature mark on her neck. The further case of the respondent, as has been unfolded in the petition of guardianship, that Soma committed suicide or she has been compelled to commit suicide being unable to bear with the torture meted out to her by her husband and in laws or she might have been killed by her husband and her in laws.