RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. ASHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the father of the minor Km. Suman and claims custody of the child. He instituted a petition in the Court of Learned Additional District, Judge, Una on the allegation that the parties to this petition were married on 1.8.1999 according to Hindu rites and customs. They have co-habitated together as husband and wife and out of the wedlock, Km. Suman was born on 14.10.2000. Initially, the relationship between the parties was affectionate and cordial. The pleading is that the respondent herein insisted that he separate from the parents of the appellant and on refusal to do so, she left the matrimonial home in the month of October, 2000, taking away the minor child with her. It is also undisputed that the respondent instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act but according to the appellant herein, the allegations made against him are false and frivolous. A decree of divorce was granted to them by the Lok Adalat on 8.11.2004 and the respondent took custody of the minor child Suman when she was only four years at the time when the divorce took place. On 28.11.2005, she remarried but according to the appellant, this relationship did not last long as the husband was not willing to accept the minor child. At present, the respondent is staying with her parents at village Bugdhar whereas the minor child is living with her Massi (maternal aunt). He pleads that his child is not receiving proper attention, she does not get enough food/clothes and the social conditions under which she is living are not congenial.

(2.) Reply was filed by the respondent herein stating that she was tormented by the appellant and her family members and persistent demand of dowry etc. was made. She was shunned by the family members when even food cooked by her was refused to be consumed by them. After the birth of the child, brother of the respondent left her at the maternal house along with dowry articles etc. which were retained by them but again, the behaviour of maltreatment did not cease. She then states that the appellant is a gambler and he even sold the tractor, harvesting machine and motor cycle etc. and the money which she had been given to her as gift(s) by her relatives etc. The petition has been filed solely for the purpose of avoiding paying maintenance to the minor child as granted by the Court.

(3.) On the settled issue as to whether the appellant was entitled to the custody, the learned Court, holds that it is admitted by the appellant herein that maintenance petition was filed against him for and on behalf of the minor child. He was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.700/- per month and finally Rs. 1200/- per mensem as maintenance allowance to the minor child. He also admitted that after the divorce, he had contacted a second marriage and that the child was living with the respondent throughout till the date of the petition. The Court, examined the minor child in order to ascertain her wishes and after finding her as a person fit to understand the nature of the occurrence, recorded statement. The statement is reproduced in the judgment in the following words: