TEJA SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Teja Singh, appellant, filed an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor children, named Lakhmir Singh, Kesar Singh and Paramjit Singh who were alleged 1 years, 9 years and 7 years respectively, in the year 1975, when the application was filed. This application was contested on behalf of Shrimati Surjit Kaur, mother of the children. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, after going through the evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant is a habitual drunkard and if the custody of the minors is entrusted to him, he will not he to look after the welfare of the minors been further held that the application filed by the appellant is not a hona fide one, as an application tinder section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has already been moved by the mother for her and her children's maintenance on 18th April, 1974 and the present application was filed on 18 May. 1074. From these facts, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the application\N as not filed with a bona fide intention on and that the of the minors will be safe in the hands of their mother, and, consequently, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the father has come up in appeal to this Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned cotunse1 for the parties, but I do not find any merit in this appeal The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to assail the finding of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge his only contention is that the appellant being the father was entitled to the custody of the minor children. The trial Court has considered this aspect inasmuch as the minor children were sent for by the Court and their were also ascertained. also come into the evidence that the mother has 3/4 milch cattle, and the minors were getting ample diet for their growth They are also getting their necessary education in the school. Since the learned Subordinate Judge after going through the evidence on the record, has come to a firm finding that it is in the welfare of the minor children to remain with their mother, no interference is called for in this appeal. Neither the learned counsel was able to show from the record any infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.