MONALISA DAS Vs. GAJENDRA KUMAR DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife/mother and submits, impugned is judgment dtd. 18/3/2023 made under Sec. 25 in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The family Court directed custody of the minor girl child, who is 8 years old, to be with respondent-husband/father. The judgment is result of incorrect appreciation of the evidence. He draws attention to paragraph-12 therein and points out, inter alia, there is erroneous finding that respondent has joint family consisting of 8 to 9 members and as such, it weighed with the learned Judge to direct his client to hand over custody to respondent-husband. He points out from evidence of P.W.2, landlord of respondent-husband that he was staying alone in the rented accommodation.

(2.) The landlord was party witness from side of respondent-husband. It is clear from his deposition that both the parties were staying together in the rented accommodation. Appellant-wife left and thereafter the deposition is that respondent-husband continued to reside on his own. On further scrutiny of paragraph-12 we do not see that the learned judge said respondent-husband was living in a joint family but only said he has a joint family consisting of 8 to 9 members. This does not appear to be inconsistent or an erroneous finding or appreciation of deposition dtd. 28/7/2022 in cross-examination of P.W.2.

(3.) xxx xxx xxxs