ANUJ SHARMA Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals arising out of the same order dated 06/05/2008 passed by the District Judge, Sikar(hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below') in Case No.1/2006 & Case No.87/2005 are being decided by way of this common judgment finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The Civil Misc. Appeal No.2984 of 2008 arises out of the said order dated 06/05/2008 passed by the court below, dismissing the case No.1/2006 filed by the appellant-Anuj Sharma under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1890'), whereas the Civil Misc. Appeal No.3529 of 2008 arises out of the said order passed by the Court below, allowing the case No.87 of 2005 filed by the respondent-Ram Gopal seeking his appointment as Guardian of the minor Vaibhav, under Section 7 of the Act of 1890.

(3.) The short facts, giving rise to the present appeals, are that the appellant-Anuj Sharma happens to be the father, and the respondent-Ram Gopal happens to be the maternal grand-father of the minor Master Vaibhav Sharma. The appellant-Anuj Sharma had married late Smt. Kavita Sharma, who happened to be the daughter of the respondent-Ram Gopal, and out of the said wedlock the minor Vaibhav Sharma was born on 02/08/2002. The said Smt. Kavita Sharma died on 30/10/2005 on account of burn injuries received by her on 26/10/2005. As per the case of the appellant, she had committed suicide, however, as per the case of the respondent, she was burnt by the family members of the appellant. According to the appellant-Anuj Sharma, on 31/10/2005, when the appellant and his family members were busy with the after death ceremony of late Smt. Kavita Sharma, the respondent-Ram Gopal along with his family members kidnapped the child-Vaibhav. The appellant therefore had lodged an FIR against the respondent, and other family members alleging abduction of child and dacoity in the house. The respondent-Ram Gopal therefore on 14/12/2005 filed the application under Section 7 of the Act of 1890 for his appointment as guardian of the minor Vaibhav, and on 07/01/2006 the appellant-Anuj Sharma filed the application under Section 25 of the said Act of 1890 seeking direction to return the custody of the said child Vaibhav to him. Both the applications having been decided by the Court below against the appellant-Anuj Sharma vide the impugned order, the appeals have been filed by the appellant-Anuj Sharma.