GOVIND SAHAI BAGARHATTA TS Vs. SANTOSH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Smt. Kumkum was married to the respondent on 8-7-1989. Out of this wedlock, a female child Priyamvada alias Sona and a male child Parijat alias Jaideep were born. In 1992, the respondent deserted his wife and she along with her daughter Priyamvada and son Parijat started living with her father, petitioner No. 1. At the time of her desertion, Smt. Kumkum was suffering from cancer and she passed away on 20-8-1993. In the month of April, 1993, while she was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, respondent forcibly took with him Priyamvada and since then she is living with the respondent and the boy Parijat is living with the appellants.

(2.) The respondent filed an application under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act in the Family Court, Ajmer for custody of his son Parijat alias Jaideep on the ground being father he is the natural guardian of his son. The petitioners herein contested the above application on various grounds. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Judge, Family Court framed following three issues including issue regarding relief.

(3.) The parties led their evidence. The learned Judge, Family Court decided all the issues in favour of respondent and accordingly allowed respondent's application and vide its order dated 16-6-1997 directed the petitioners to hand over custody of minor Parijat alias Jaideep to respondent Santosh Mishra within three months from the date of order. The Court also directed the respondent to arrange the meetings of his son and daughter with the appellants on particular occasions and dates. The respondent further moved an application before the Court below making allegation against the apellants that they have not yet handed over Parijat and that custody of the boy should be made available through police. The appellants submitted reply to this application and inter alia, submitted that the boy was not mentally prepared to live with the respondent. The appellants prayed for review of the earlier order and prayed that custody should not be ordered to be given to the respondent. The appellants also moved an application dated 11-9-97 stating therein that the respondent does not have any income and he is unemployed. It was also stated that despite various letters written to the respondent, he did not come to him and, therefore, the order passed on 16-6-97 be reconsidered. The appellants also filed some applications on different dates praying that some time may be granted for handing over custody of the boy. The learned Judge, Family Court decided all these applications vide its order dated 19-2-1998 and inter alia, directed the appellants to hand over custody of Parijat to the respondent before 30-4-1998 and if it is not done by 30-4-98, arrest warrant of Jaideep alias Parijat under Section 25 (2) of the Guardians and Wards Act be issued. It is against these orders that the appellants have approached this Court through the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.