PANNA LAL Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 4. 2. 1989 of the Guardian Judge, whereby he directed to hand over the custody of minor Neeraj to his mother and declaring her to be her natural guardian. Appellant No. 1 is the grand-father while appellant No. 2 is the uncle of minor Neeraj.

(2.) IN this case we are concerned with the custody of the minor. Not only under the Guardian and Wards Act but also under the general principles of law and the scripture, child's welfare is the principal consideration for giving the custody and guardianship of a minor. The welfare of the child is not to be considered only in terms of money or his physical welfare. His welfare is of wide amplitude. Numerous factors have to be taken notice of before custody of a minor child is given to a person. The circumstances cannot be itemised. The welfare of the child is to be considered under peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. One of the litmus tests suggested to find out where the welfare of a child lies, is what wise parents must ought to consder to be in the welfare of the child. It includes moral, intellectual, financial emotional, educational affluence and capacity to build the career of the child which are the prime considerations. The conduct and interest of the members of the family of the guardian have also to be taken note of.

(3.) IN this case, Smt. Santosh was married to Budh Ram son of Panna Lal appellant No. 1. Budh Ram died on 2. 5. 1987 leaving behind his widow and two minor children-one of them being Neeraj in the custody of the appellants. After the death of her husband Budh Ram, Santosh started living with her parents with her one year old son Amit. According to the averments of the mother, she war turned out of the matrimonial home by her in-laws with one year old child while Neeraj was kept by his grand father. On 1. 6. 1987, the petitioner mother applied to the Guardian Court for custody of minor Neeraj, which unfortunately dragged uptil 4. 2. 1989 when the appellants were directed to handover the custody of the minor to his mother, The appellants preferred this appeal in which the operation of the said order was stayed by this Court.