K HRANGCHHINGA Vs. C ZOMUANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.N. Meitei and Smt. Rosemary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This witnesses a fierce legal battle between the grand-fathers one from paternal side: when the other is maternal grandfather for guardianship of the 4 unfortunate minor children who lost their parents in a very pathetic and tragic motor vehicle accident. All those 4 children including 3 (three) daughters and 1 (one) son of Late Lalhlimpuia Khiangte and Smt. Lalchhuanmawii have been deprived of their parental warmth and care at a time when they are to play on the lap of their parents. The cruel hand of destiny, snatched their parents leaving them in the doldrums to see the current litigation of their grand parents claiming each of them to be the fittest person to maintain them and look after their betterment and welfare in; the coming days till they attain majority. The basic point involved in this case is as to who would be the rightful person upon whom the responsibilities can be entrusted for the welfare of those minor children.

(3.) The narration of the facts, in brief would be necessary for proper resolution of the point raised in this case. Four minor children namely, l) Laltlanchuahi-11 years, 2) Lalthanmawii-9 years, 3) Lalmuanawmi-6 years and 4) Laltemruata-4 years, were born out of the wedlock of Shri Lalhlimpuia and Smt. Lalchhuanmawii, (both since deceased) who got married themselves in the year 1991. When the couples, on 21.4.03, were coming back from Haulawng after attending Seventh Day Adventist Conference and also after visiting the respondent, being the father of the deceased Smt. Lalchhuanmawii at Chhipphir, they met with an accident in their own vehicle. The father of the children, Lalhlimpuia died on the spot when their mother died after 2 days succumbing to the injuries. By 23.4.03 all the four children, as desired by the Almighty, have become orphans. Immediately after the death of their parents, the instant tug of war between the appellant and the respondent in this appeal have ensued over the guardianship of the four children.