HARBANS SINGH Vs. VIDYA WANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to this litigation, who are Sainis by caste, were married to each other in the year 1941. On 20-7-1944, a son named Baldev Singh was born on them. The parents lived together for some time but it appears that their married life was not quite happy and smooth. In October, 1949, the husband, Harbans Singh, married a second wife and this completed the rupture between the parties, Shrimati Vidya Wanti, along with her son, thereafter continued to live with her parents. In April, 1941, she initiated proceedings under S. 488, Criminal Procedure Code, against her husband and was awarded Rs. 30/- per mensem by way of maintenance for herself and her son. It seems that the petitioner found it difficult to discharge his obligations for maintenance towards the first wife and the child and therefore entered into a compromise with Vidya Wanti, renouncing all his martial claims against her in consideration of here giving up the right of maintenance. It is significant that by means of this deed, Harbans Singh's liability to maintain the son was also given up by the lady and she agreed to have the custody of the child for a period of six years. This agreement is dated 27-4-1952, and is marked Exhibit R. 1. Baldev Singh minor has ever since then been living either with his mother or with his other maternal relatives, for example, his maternal grandfather or maternal uncle. After the release granted the Harbans Singh, Shrimati Vidya Wanti appears also to have re-married and there are said to be three children born to her from her second marriage.

(2.) The present application out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by Harbans Singh in April, 1958, under S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for obtaining the custody of the minor Baldev Singh. Reliance for this claim has principally been placed on the agreement dated 27th of April, 1952, according to which Shrimati Vidya Wanti was to have the custody of the child for a period of six years, where after Harbans Singh was to be the guardian. This petition has been resisted by Shrimati Vidya Wanti on a number of grounds, two of them, which are material for the purposes of this appeal, being that the Court at Amritsar has no jurisdiction because the minor ordinarily resides at Chandausi in Moradabad District, and that the welfare of the minor requires that he should continue to remain in the guardianship of the mother who has made adequate arrangements for properly looking after the child, previously through her father and now through her real brother who are both financially much better off the Harbans Singh and are more suited to look after the interests of the minor. The trial Court in a very well considered judgment disallowed the application on both these grounds. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Court held that the minor was ordinarily residing at Chandausi in Moradabad district since June or July, 1957, with his maternal uncle where he has also been admitted to a school. In so far as the welfare of the minor is concerned, the Court has observed that the minor has, ever since the rupture between his parents, been living with his mother or his maternal relatives and has been properly and effectively looked after by them; the father has not cared to bother about the welfare of the child all these years and has not even cared to send him any amount by way of maintenance.

(3.) The financial position of the minor's maternal uncle, with whom he is at present residing, as also of the minor's maternal grandfather, is much better than that of Harbans Singh; for these considerations the Court considered that the Welfare of the minor would be better served if he were allowed to remain in the guardianship of the mother.