RANJIT SINGH Vs. MADAN GOPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.2014 passed by the Guardian Judge, Phillaur dismissing the petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (in short "the Act") read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Wards Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "1956 Act") seeking custody of minor daughter Rupinderjit Kaur, the appellant has approached this Court by way of instant appeal.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage of the appellant with Jaswinder Kaur, daughter of the respondents was solemnized on 16.2.2009 according to religious rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, they lived and cohabited together as husband and wife at village Tehang, Tehsil Phillaur. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter, namely, Rupinderjit Kaur was born on 1.12.2009. However, said Jaswinder Kaur died on 3.11.2011. After her death, the appellant started looking after the minor being the natural father. On the asking of the respondents, the appellant along with Rupinderjit Kaur went to their village Kadiana to meet them. After meeting, when the appellant was ready to come back to his village, the respondents requested him to leave his minor daughter with them and promised to send her on the next day to village Tehang, Tehsil Phillaur. When the minor did not turn up, the appellant went to village Kadiana and requested the respondent to hand over minor Rupinderjit Kaur but they refused to hand over the custody of the minor. The respondents have no right, title or concern to keep the custody of the minor with them as they were not natural guardian of the minor. The appellant requested the respondents to admit his claim but in vain. Accordingly, the appellant filed a petition under Section 25 of the Act read with Section 6 of the 1956 Act for custody of minor Rupinderjit Kaur. The said petition was contested by the respondents by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that an inquiry was pending against the appellant and his parents to the effect that they had murdered their daughter Jaswinder Kaur alias Bholi (mother of the minor). It was further pleaded that a compromise dated 16.4.2002 regarding the custody of the minor was effected between the parties and in pursuance thereof, the custody of the minor was handed over to them by the appellant and his father. The appellant had also concealed the fact of his second marriage having taken place on 9.3.2012. After the birth of female child, the family of the appellant started harassing Jaswinder Kaur and used to say that they did not want the female child. The appellant never behaved with love and affection to Jaswinder Kaur. In the month of September, 2011, Jaswinder Kaur again became pregnant and on knowing this fact, the appellant and his family started demoralizing her by saying that she would again give birth to a female child as they were told by some astrologist that Jaswinder Kaur would not bear a male child. They gave abortion medicines to Jaswinder Kaur and sent her to village Meerke, where her elder sister Rajinder Kaur was married. In village Meerke, Jaswinder Kaur developed serious pain and told her sister and mother that she had been given abortion medicines by the appellant and his parents against her consent. Thereafter, Jaswinder Kaur was got admitted in Guru Ramdas Hospital, Amritsar by her sister Rajwinder Kaur and her husband, where she died during the intervening night of 2/3.11.2011. According to the respondent, Jaswinder Kaur had not died a natural death, rather she was murdered by the appellant along with his parents by giving medicines. On coming to know about the second marriage of the appellant, the respondents had filed a complaint against him and his parents in Police Station, Phillaur which was pending against them. As a counter-blast to the said complaint, the appellant was insisting for the custody of the minor. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

(3.) In support of his case, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the respondents examined Rajwinder Kaur daughter of Madan Gopal Singh as RW1, Rajwinder Kaur wife of Iqbal Singh as RW-2, Madan Gopal Singh (respondent No.1) as RW3, Santokh Singh as RW4 and Ajaib Singh as RW5.