NARBADA Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 5th July, 1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 249/95 Sita Ram v. Smt. Narbada, whereby the petition filed by Sita Ram under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was allowed and the appellant (non-petitioner) Smt. Narbada was directed to hand over the custody of her mior child Nitesh to the respondent (petitioner).

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Nitesh is only eight years old. He has been living with the appellant and the appellant is looking after him satisfactorily and it would not be in the interest of the minor Nitesh to hand over the custody of Nitesh to the respondent (Sita Ram) and the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur has committed a grave error by accepting the petition filed by the respondent (Sita Ram) under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. On above grounds the learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the order passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Udaipur on 5th July, 1996 be set aside. The learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Udaipur.

(3.) The facts of the case may be briefly stated as below : The marriage of the appellant Smt. Narbada with the respondent Sita Ram was solemnised in the month of April. 1984 according to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. After her marriage the appellant gave birth to two children, namely, Nitesh and Kapil. Nitesh is eight years old and Kapil is six years old. The appellant lived with the respondent up to the year 1995. On 7th May, 1995 the appellant left the house of her father where she was residing with her son Nitesh. Information about the disappearance of the appellant was given to the Police by the respondent. The police recovered the appellant during the investigation of the case registered at the police station. The respondent Sita Ram filed the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act on 30th November, 1995 praying that the custody of his minor son Nitesh be ordered to be given to him. In his petition the respondent (petitioner) alleged that the appellant had gone with Kailash Mali and that the appellant (non-petitioner) had accepted some other person as her husband and if Nitesh is allowed to live with her his life is likely to be spoiled.