JASWINDER KAUR Vs. JAWALA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge -cum -Guardian Judge, Kapurthala, dated 7th April, 1986 whereby Jawala Singh, grand -father of the minor child Balbir Singh, was appointed as guardian of the person of Balbir Singh on an application under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act (for short the Act).

(2.) JASWINDER Kaur was married to Karnail Singh who died in the year 1982 leaving behind a minor child who was of 4 years age at that time. Thereafter she re -married to one Gurmail Singh. Jawala Singh father of Karnail Singh (deceased) filed the present application under Sections 7 and 25 the Act for appointment of the guardian of the minor Balbir Singh and its custody on 24th August, 1983. It was pleaded that he being the grand father of the minor possesses sufficient property and he is in a better position to provide all comforts of life and an opportunity to get education upto the higher standard. Moreover, after the second marriage of Jaswinder Kaur, even the life of the minor is not safe. There is no proper arrangement with her for the education of the minor child. Moreover, her second husband had also children from his first wife. So it is in the interest and welfare of the minor if he is appointed as guardian of minor Balbir Singh. In the written statement filed on behalf of Jaswinder Kaur, it was pleaded that it is in the interest and in the benefit of the minor that he should remain in the custody of the mother who could better look after him. However, it was admitted that Jawala Singh was the grand -father of the minor. After the death of her husband she alongwith the minor child started residing with Jawala Singh but it was alleged that she was turned out. The second marriage was admitted. However, it was denied that it was in the welfare of the minor if the grand -father was appointed as a guardian in preference to the mother. The learned Guardian Judge came to the conclusion that it is in the interest and welfare of the minor that he should be brought up and looked after in his own family especially when his grand -father had no interest adverse to the minor. For this consideration alone Jawala Singh was appointed as the guardian of the minor child but at the same time his application for appointment of the guardian regarding the property of the minor was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the mother of the child has filed this appeal but no appeal has been filed by the grand -father for appointment of the guardian of the property of the minor.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record I find that the whole approach of the Guardian Judge was wrong. Admittedly, in such cases it is the interest and welfare of the minor which is to be kept in the mind while appointing the guardian. After the death of the husband of Jaswinder Kaur, she a long with her minor child are living separately and she has re married in year 1982. The second husband is employed in the Electricity Department. There is nothing on the record to show that there are any children in the family of Jawala Singh where the minor child may live with them. In the absence of evidence it cannot be said that it was in the welfare of minor to appoint him as his guardian. He is happily living with his mother alongwith other children and is studying in the school and, therefore, it will not be in his interest to hand over his custody to the grand -father at this tender age.