BALDEV KAUR Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal lays challenge to order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam, (exercising the powers of Guardian Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dismissing the petition of the appellant-Baldev Kaur. Baldev Kaur wd/o late Sh. Sakander Singh, grand mother of minor Ramneet Singh, prays for appointing her as guardian of the person and property of the minor. As per averments in the petition, father of the minor namely, Parminder Singh, died and the minor is living with the petitioner. She has no interest adverse to the minor. After death of Parminder Singh, Gurjit Kaur-respondent No. 2 (mother of the minor) has contracted second marriage with Gurdeep Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh. Respondent No. 2 is not fit to be appointed as guardian of the minor. The appellant has great love and affection for the minor and she is looking after his property. She has a residential house at village Chhahar, a good source of income and is capable to provide the facilities for his better future.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 filed reply seriously contesting the claim of the appellant and, in turn, raised the plea that the appellant is 84 years old and unable to maintain and look after herself. She is a resident of Canada and has handed over the custody of the minor to some relative at village Dhaleta, District Jalandhar. The appellant wanted to settle the minor at Canada but when the papers were sent to the concerned Embassy, the same were rejected on the ground that the appellant is unable to maintain herself and she cannot be treated as a guardian of the minor. After death of Parminder Singh, she was remarried by the appellant with Gurdeep Singh, a relative of the appellant. The appellant, played fraud and forgery by obtaining signatures of the respondent agreeing to send the minor to Canada but she has never given consent for giving custody of the minor to the appellant. She has asserted her claim for custody being the lawful and natural guardian of the minor with the plea that she is the best person to look after the interests of the minor. She has filed a counter claim seeking custody of the minor with the plea that the minor is in illegal custody of the appellant.

(3.) The controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues by the learned trial Court:-