VINOD KUMARI Vs. ABHILASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 7.7.1998 of learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan (exercising the delegated powers of District Judge under the Guardian & Wards Act), whereby the petition, under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, filed by respondent Abhilasha initially against late Ram Pratap Chandel, who died during the pendency of the petition and the present appellant, has been allowed.

(2.) RELEVANT facts, as per pleadings of the parties, may be summed up thus. Appellant Vinod Kumari was the legally wedded wife of late Ram Partap Chandel. It appears that no child was born from the wedlock of late Ram Partap Chandel and appellant Vinod Kumari. Ram Partap Chandel then married respondent Abhilasha and a daughter was born from that wedlock on 20.7.1988. Some differences cropped up between late Ram Partap Chandel and respondent Abhilasha. Ram Partap Chandel removed the minor child from the custody of respondent Abhilasha and kept the child with him and his first wife Vinod Kumari, appellant. Abhilasha, being the natural mother, filed a petition for the custody of the child. Ram Partap Chandel contested the petition in which he alleged that respondent Abhilasha had been mal-treating the child and at times even subjected her to physical torture. He also alleged that Abhilasha, respondent was a lady of easy virtue and several persons visited her in his absence. In the light of the aforesaid allegations, he pleaded that it was not safe as also in the interest of and for the welfare of the child that its custody be given to Abhilasha, even though she was her natural mother. The petition was still pending, when Ram Partap Chandel died. Appellant Vinod Kumari, the first wife of Ram Partap Chandel claimed that a will had been executed by Ram Partap Chandel on 20.7.1997, which provided that on the death of the testator the custody of the child was to be given to her. So she continued to contest the petition.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing of the matter, it was conceded that the child had attained majority on 20.7.2006. Learned counsel for the appellant also conceded the right of respondent Abhilasha to keep the child on account of her being the natural mother. However, he assailed the finding of the learned Senior Sub Judge regarding the validity of the will dated 20.7.1997, set up by the appellant.