PARVEEN BALA ALIAS VEENA RANI Vs. JAGDISH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Guardian Judge whereby he held that the respondent is entitled to the custody of his minor son Sonu and a direction was issued to the wife to deliver his custody to the respondent.

(2.) THE facts ;

(3.) THE respondent (hereinafter referred to as the husband) moved a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1925 for his appointment as guardian of the minor and for custody of his minor son Sonu against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the wife ). The parties were married on February 28, 1979. A male child Sonu was born on May 16, 1980. The wife gave birth to a daughter in July, 1982. The parties lived together till November 13, 1981. According to the husband, the wife had gone to attend the marriage of her younger sister and did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter. The wife contends that she was turned out of the matrimonial home by giving her beating since the husband and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. They made claims for a TV set, a refrigerator and a scooter. The husband even took respectables in the form of a Panchayat to the wife to persuade her to return to the matrimonial home but without success. The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 4-5-1983 and an ex-parte decree was passed in his favour on November 5, 1983. The ex-parte decree was set aside on July 22, 1985. The application was contested and it resulted in a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on March 19, 1987. The wife challenged the order of the Matrimonial Court in appeal in this Court. The same was dismissed on February 3, 1988 and Letters Patent Appeal against the said order is pending. The wife moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the husband on April 18, 1984. The same was decided on June 15, 1987. Revision against the said order was dismissed on February 3, 1988. The order of the Revisional Authority was challenged in this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 2420-M of 1988 which is pending adjudication.