BANITA CHADHA Vs. ANKIT CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-wife has filed the present appeal challenging the order dtd. 5/2/2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, vide which petition under Ss. 7, 10 & 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 filed by the respondent-husband, for appointment of Guardian of the minor child Arshita, has been allowed.

(2.) The respondent-husband had filed the aforesaid petition for appointment of the guardian of the minor child Arshita, averring therein that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15/4/2009. Out of the said wedlock, a female child was born on 14/3/2010. The appellant-wife was living in adultery with one Sachin Yadav and was having physical relations with him, regarding which FIR No. 24/2015 under Sec. 497 IPC stood registered by the respondent-husband at Police Station Kasna, Greater Noida (UP). It was further alleged that the appellant-wife being unchaste could not impart moral values and ethics to the child. Even when the appellant-wife had been living with the respondent-husband, she used to spend her time with said Sachin Yadav, thereby completely neglecting the minor. It was further alleged that the respondent-husband is working as a Director in IEC College of Hotel Management, Greater Noida (UP) and thus, was able to maintain the child and provide her the basic necessities of life. The appellant-wife had removed the minor from the custody of the respondent-husband without his consent.

(3.) Upon notice, the appellant-wife had appeared and filed her written statement controverting the allegations contained in the petition filed by the respondent-husband. The factum of marriage and the birth of the minor child, was admitted. It was, however, alleged that she had been continuously harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. Yet further, the respondent-husband used to check the mobile of the appellant-wife on regular basis and would always suspect her character. Even during pregnancy, she was not provided with proper food and other necessities of life, resulting into the premature delivery of the child. In September, 2012, both, the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were selected in I.E.C. Group of Institute, Greater Noida and they started residing in a rented accommodation at Noida, but the unnecessary interference of the respondent's parents continued. With a view to damaging the reputation of the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband had prepared false and fabricated e-mails and tricked photographs by associating the name of the appellant-wife with the Head of the Department and on the basis of such documents an FIR had been registered by the respondent-husband against said Sachin Yadav. Efforts were made to reconcile the matter with the help of the parents of the appellant-wife and other respectables in the society, but to no avail. Under these circumstances, the appellant-wife was left with no option except to go to her parental house along with the minor child.