MANORAMA PATI Vs. SUVENDU KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Baral, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who is maternal grandmother of the child. He submits, his client is aggrieved by judgment dtd. 25/4/2023 made by the family Court dismissing the civil proceeding, wherein his client had claimed custody of the minor child, presently almost 9 years old. Daughter of his client died in suspicious circumstances. Criminal case is pending. In the circumstances, his client had well founded reasons to have applied for custody. All his client wants is welfare of the child as may not be looked into if she remains with her father and paternal grandparents in the house, where her mother met with her death. The family Court erred in only relying upon wishes of the child to make impugned judgment.

(2.) He relies on oral order dtd. 3/11/2017 made by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in C/FA/982/2017 (Alkaben Shaileshbhai Kubavat v. Seemaben Alias Shitalben Hiteshbhai Kubavat) to submit, at least visitation should be directed. His client is prepared to meet her granddaughter in the nearby Child Welfare Centre.

(3.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents, who are the father and paternal grandparents.