BABU RAM Vs. KESHWA CHAND JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Guardian Judge, Jullundur, dated 9-2-1977, whereby the custody of the minor was given to his father, the respondent.

(2.) AN application was made by the respondent for the custody of his minor son, Jiwan Pal alias Rajinder, born on 28-1-1964 against the present appellants, who are maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of the minor respectively. The mother of the minor, Smt. Tushar Kanta died in 1973 at the house of her parents, the appellants. The case of the respondent is that he is the father of the minor and thus his natural guardian, that he has sufficient property and income to maintain the minor properly and that his approximate income is Rs. 5,000.00per mensem. The appellants, on the other hand, are alleged to be financially poor and do not have sufficient means to support and educate the minor. Both the appellants are of old age. Appellant No. 1, the maternal grandfather of the minor, is suffering from paralysis for the last more than ten years and so the health and prosperity of the minor in the custody of the appellants is in danger. It was also alleged in the petition that the appellants were keeping the minor in their custody out of greed as they wanted to extract money from the respondent. As against this, the case of the appellants is that the minor is living with them since his birth and was born at their house. The allegation of the respondent that the appellants are not in possession of sufficient means to bring up and educate the minor was denied. About six months prior to the birth of the minor, relations between the respondent and the mother of the minor became strained because the respondent had illicit relations with the wife of his brother Sada Nand, and the mother of the minor objected to the same, with the result that she had to shift to the house of her parents, i. e. , the appellants. The minor's mother was got trained as a nurse. It was also averred that the respondent was trying to take away the minor because he was anxious to grab the insurance money. On the pleadings of the parties the following two issues were framed:-

(3.) TAKING into consideration all the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the important question to be decided is as to which of the parties will be the proper guardian of the minor keeping in view his interest and welfare. According to S. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, father is the natural guardian of the Hindu minor. However, according to S. 13 of this Act the welfare of the minor is of paramount consideration by the Court appointing or declaring any person as guardian of the minor. The said provision is reproduced below.