SAJJAN KUMAR Vs. CHANDRAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed under Sec. 47 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), challenging the order dt. 20.02.2007 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as "the Court below") in Civil Misc. Application No. 131/2002, whereby the Court below has dismissed the application of the appellant -applicant seeking his appointment as the guardian of the child Naman under the provisions contained in the said Act. In the instant case, it appears that the sister of the appellant was married to the respondent No. 1 on 20.05.1997 according to the Hindu Rites & Customs. Out of the wedlock, one child named Naman was born on 30.10.2000. The sister of the appellant died when the said child was 8 months old, and according to the appellant since then the child was staying with him. The appellant, thereafter, moved an application under Sec. 10 of the said Act for appointing him as guardian of the said child. The said application was resisted by the respondents. The Court below has rejected the said application of the appellant -applicant vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 1, father of the child has remarried, and the child is residing with the appellant right after the death of his mother till this date, and therefore, the appellant should be appointed as the guardian of the said child. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there being no illegality in the impugned order, this Court may not interfere with the same. In the instant case, the appellant appears to be the maternal uncle of the said child Naman, who was born out of the wedlock between the respondent No. 1 and the sister of the appellant. As rightly observed by the Court below, merely because the respondent No. 1 has remarried, that would not disqualify him to be the guardian of the said child. The Court below has rightly considered the provisions contained in the said Act, and dismissed the application of the appellant -applicant, which order does not warrant any interference. In that view of the matter, the present appeal is dismissed.