KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. DAYALA RAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10.02.2011 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajpura, (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') whereby an application under Sec. 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1956, (for short "the Act ") for handing over custody of minor son aged about 7 years to applicant-Krishan Kumar, father of the minor, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that marriage of the appellant and respondent No.2-Poonam Rani, was solemnised on 29.08.2000. From this wed-lock, a child was born on 28.08.2001. The relations between the appellant and respondent No.2 became strained and as a result thereof, their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce with mutual consent of the parties on 19.11.2005. The minor child was in custody of the mother at the time of divorce. It is alleged that the minor was being taken care of by his mother till her re-marriage about 1½ years ago. It is further averred that the child has been illegally entrusted to the custody of respondent No.1, father of respondent No.2, as he is not a natural guardian of the minor. The minor is not being taken care properly by respondent No.1 as he has no fixed source of income for proper care of the minor. The appellant went to Rajpura to meet the minor. The child asked the appellant to take him along and also told him that his (the minor's) life is in danger as respondent No.1 beats him. Respondent No.1 is a poor person, who is running a STD/PCO in a booth. The appellant has sufficient income as he is a Government employee. During stay of the minor with the appellant before divorce, the appellant got him admitted in a Convent School at Bathinda but now the minor is studying in a private school. The family of the appellant is well educated and can provide better education to the minor at Bathinda.

(3.) The respondents filed a joint reply seriously contesting the claim of the appellant. They denied allegations that the minor is not being looked after properly or that the welfare of the minor lies in his custody with the appellant. It is alleged that the petition has been filed only to harass the respondents. In view of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and respondent No.2 in terms whereof, the parties agreed to dissolve their marriage under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant has no right to claim custody of the minor.