SUMITRA Vs. NARENDER PHOGAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sumitra, the maternal grandmother (Nani) of minor child namely Khushal Phogat, being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Panipat, whereby custody of the minor child has been granted to respondent No.1- father of the child, has filed the present appeal on various grounds stating that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and evidence and welfare of the child has not been taken into consideration.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present case, are that respondent No.1 Narender Phogat, got married with Manisha (now deceased) daughter of the appellant on 19.12.2013. Out of their wedlock, a son namely Khushal Phogat was born on 28.02.2015. Manisha, the mother of minor Khushal Phogat fell ill and expired on 22.03.2017 while admitted PGIMS, Rohtak. An FIR No.74 under Sections 304-B, 34 and 506 IPC was also registered in Police Station-Madlauda, Distt. Panipat against respondent No.1 and his other family members. Subsequently, they were found innocent in the investigation and cancellation report was filed by the investigating agency. After death of Manisha, the minor child remained with the maternal grandparents. Subsequently, respondent No.1-father of the minor child filed petition under Sections 7-10 and 12 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the minor child, which was allowed vide impugned judgment and decree with a direction to the appellant-maternal grandmother to hand over the custody of the minor child to the father. However, the visitation rights were given to the appellant-maternal grandmother.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to harassment and cruelty caused by respondent No.1, deceased Manisha, mother of the minor child, fell ill. She was admitted in the hospital and ultimately, she expired on 22.03.2017. Learned counsel also submits that an FIR was also registered against respondent No.1 and thereafter, a protest petition was also filed. Learned counsel also submits that parents of respondent No.1 are of old age. Respondent No.1 can remarry and as such, the welfare of the child has not been taken into consideration by the Family Court. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is getting handsome pension and her son is also in government job. The welfare of the minor child can be looked after being joint family. At the end, learned counsel submits that the minor child has remained in the company of the appellant from the very beginning and to grant the custody at this stage would be contrary to the welfare of the child.