NAND LAL Vs. BRIJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal lays challenge to order dated 30.03.2009. passed by the Civil Judge (Senior division), Sonepat. whereby the petition filed by Brij Bala widow of Rajesh Kumar (respondent herein), under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act') read Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, for custody of minor son of the respondent, has been allowed. Brij Bala, filed a petition for custody of her minor son by pleading that she was married to Rajesh Kumar son of Nand Lal, appellant, on 15.12.2000. The minor child, whose custody, is the bone of contention, was born out of the wedlock, on 06.05.2003. Unfortunately, Rajesh Kumar, father of the minor, passed away on 18.08.2005. The respondent has inter alia pleaded that she was subjected to maltreatment, torture and cruelty by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry. After the death of Rajesh Kumar, she was given merciless beatings by the appellant and shunted out from the matrimonial home on 10.07.2006, but the child was illegally kept by him and his wife (Khazano Devi, since deceased). She lodged a criminal case under Sections 406, 498-A read with Section 120-B IPC against the appellant and others. The appellant is an uneducated and old aged person. He is unable to look after and guard the future of the minor. He has no source of income and always remain sick. She is an educated lady residing in Ambala City. She can look after the minor child. She is matriculate and working as a ladies tailor. She is also working in the house of neighbours and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. She can provide education and comforts of life to the minor child. Her parents are also ready to help her in maintaining and upbringing the child. She has no adverse interest against the minor.

(2.) In reply, the appellant controverted allegations in the petition and raised a plea that the respondent never bothered about the minor child and while leaving the matrimonial home in July, 2006 left behind the minor as she wanted to remarry. The respondent wants to grab 1/3rd share of the minor in house No. 340/26 belonging to the appellant. The attitude and behaviour of the respondent always remained hostile towards Rajesh Kumar. She has no love and affection for the minor child and has falsely got lodged a criminal case against the appellant and his family members. All other material averments of the petition were denied with a prayer for dismissal of the petition with costs.

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