RAJ KUMAR Vs. MOOL RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, dated June 13, 19 7, whereby the application of the appellant under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, for the custody of his minor daughter was dismissed on the ground that the Court at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

(2.) The appellant, to show that the Court at Chandigarh had jurisdiction to entertain the application, alleged that his minor daughter was removed from his custody on April 19, 1975, by her maternal grand-father on the pretext that she would be sent back to him in a week. This plea of the appellant was controverted by the respondent who averred that on the death of his daughter Smt. Harish Rani on December 24. 1972, he took away the minor on the request of the appellant for bringing her up as he showed his inability to do so. In support of their respective versions, both the parties examined a number of witnesses. There was, thus, only oral evidence led by both the parties. However, one of the appellant's witnesses Devinder Singh admitted that the minor had been taken away by the maternal grand-father of the minor on the death of her mother and since then she was with the respondent. In view of the corroboration of the version of the respondent by one of the a witnesses of the appellant, the trial court negatived the plea of the appellant and dismissed the application.

(3.) The finding recorded by the trial court is based on the oral evidence led by the parties. Nothing has hen urged by the learned counsel which could justify interference with that finding in appeal. He, however, urged that the statement of Devinder Singh A.W. has been mis-read inasmuch as he never specified any time when the minor was taken away by the maternal grand-father after the death of her mother. The trial Court also did not state in the judgment that the witness had made any such statement There was, thus, no mis-reading of the statement of this witness by the arial Court. Lastly, it was argued that as held in Sarat Chandra Chakarbati v. Forman and another, 12 Allahabad 214, the Courts, where the removal of minor from the custody of the natural guardian as alleged, also have the jurisdiction to try the application. The argument is wholly misconceived. In the present case, the position is that the minor was not removed from the custody of the natural guardian and instead it was the natural guardian who had handed over her to the maternal grand-father for being brought up as the minor was of a very tender age at the time of her mother's death. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel is, therefore, of no help to him.