DILBAGH RAI Vs. PREM RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a petition under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor children of the appellant who were alleged to have been removed from has custody by the respondent-wife. The application has been dismissed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Chandigarh, by his order dated 8th August, 1977, as it came to the conclusion that it is not for the benefit and interest of the minors to live with the appellant i.e. the father.

(2.) Dilbagh Rai appellant filed the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act against his wife Smt. Prem Rani for the custody of three minor children who were staying with their mother-respondent. It was contended that the parties were married on 4th October, 1965, at Chandigarh and out of their wedlock three issues, Anil Kumar, Anup Rani and Sanjiv Kumar were born and from the very beginning the respondent-wife had adopted an unfair attitude towards her husband and thus she did not want to reside with the appellant at Amloh and she started living at Chandigarh with her parents. It was further contended that in the year 1972, the appellant had filed a petition for judicial separation when the respondent-wife while leaving matrimonial house at Amloh had taken away with her three children to Chandigarh. It was further contended that he was earing Rs. 500/- per month whereas his wife has no income to ain tain their children and they are being ignored and he being the natural guardian is entitled to the custody of the minor children. In the written statement filed on behalf of Prem Rani, respondent, it was pleaded that the appellant did file a petition for judicial reparation and it was found therein that the appellant was cruel to her. She further pleaded that for the last several years the appellant never visited Chandigarh and did not care to maintain the children in any manner. She further contended that she is giving good education to the children and is spending on the children entire rent of the house owned by her brother at Chandigarh. It as further averred that the appellant has no female member in his family, who could look after the children. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) The learned Senior Sub-Judge, after going through the whole evidence, came to the conclusion that the welfare of the children at present lies in their staying with their mother and consequently dismissed the application. Ferling aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been filed in this Court.