CHAMELI AND ANOTHER Vs. SEEMA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chameli aged 60 years and Ramphal aged 64 years, grandparents of Muskan, sought the custody of Muskan, aged about 3 years, daughter of their son Sanjay invoking the provision of Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. They filed the petition against their daughter-in-law Seema-respondent No. 1 and her mother Parmeshwari wife of Mange Ram, respondent No. 2. As per petitioners, Sanjay was married to respondent No. 1. Out of this wedlock, Muskan was born to them. Sanjay died on 25.03.2010. After the death of Sanjay, respondent No. 1 took Muskan to her parental home. She solemnized second marriage with Jitender son of Naresh Kumar on 24.11.2012. Jitender was married and having two children from his previous wife. As per petitioners, respondent No. 1 has left Muskan with her mother respondent No. 2.

(2.) It is further the case of petitioners that respondent No. 2 is having no source of income. Brothers of respondent No. 1 are drunkard. There is none in the parental family of respondent No. 1 to look after the minor child. Respondent No. 2 remains ill. In such atmosphere, no education could be provided to the minor whereas petitioner No. 2 is retired as Field Officer from Haryana Harijan Kalyan Nigam. She can provide better education to the minor child and the atmosphere of their house is also good. On the other hand, it is the case of respondents that petitioners were having two sons. Their son Surender was married with Sita, who filed civil litigation against the petitioners and her husband. Petitioners are old aged people and living separately from their son and having no source of income. The atmosphere in their house is tense. When respondent No. 1 left her matrimonial home, petitioners never tried to bring her back to her matrimonial home. Rather they flatly refused to keep her with them. Finding no alternative, she had to get married for the second time. At the time of marriage, it was mutually agreed that Muskan shall live with her. She has been living with respondent No. 1. Jitender is a qualified person and employed as a Teacher in a well reputed school. Respondent No. 2 has no concern with the matter as Muskan has been living happily with her mother. With these pleas, dismissal of the petition with costs was prayed.

(3.) Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following points: