GURDEOSINGH Vs. DAULAT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Gurdeosingh against the order of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar, who accepting the application of the respondent Daulat Kaur under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act directed him to deliver his minor son Darshansingh into the custody of the respondent. The relevant facts are these:

(2.) The appellant Gurdeosingh married the respondent Daulat Kaur some time in the year 1947. Out of this union the minor Darshansingh was born in the year 1950. In the year 1952 or 1953 Gurdeosingh married another wife Mst. Mukhtiar. Some time after the second marriage relations between the husband and his first wife got strained and the petitioner's case is that Gurdeosingh began to ill-treat her and her son Darshansingh. . It is further alleged that some time in July, 1955, Gurdeosingh turned her out of his house and the minor son was kept By Gurdeosingh in his custody. In August, 1955. Daulat Kaur put an application in the Court of Senior Civil Judge under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and prayed for an order directing that the minor should be delivered in her custody. The main grounds on which the petition was based are that Gurdeosingh and his second wife Mukhtiar Kaur had been ill-treat-ing the minor and had been often beating him. The minor is completely neglected and no, arrangements for his proper schooling are made. It was also stated that Gurdeosingh. had fallen into a bad company and is a man of bad character. It was also prayed in the application that Gurdeosingh should also be directed to pay Rs. 100/- per month to Daulat Kaur for the proper mainten-ance of the minor son Darshan Singh. The application was resisted by Gurdeosingh, who denied the various allegations made in the petition and further pleaded that Daulat Kaur was not turned out by him but she left his house on her own free will and it was on account of her refusal to come and live with him that he had to contract the second marriage. It was also mentioned that Daulat Kaur is not a woman of good character. He also promised to make proper arrangement for the schooling of the minor. The trial court after recording evidence accepted the petitioner's application. Analysing the trial court's finding, I may point out that he first made a general state ment that the evidence adduced from both sides is highly interested and hence it is not safe to rely on it. Having made the general statement he proceeded to examine the allegations of the respondent with regard to the character of Daulat Kaur and concluded that there is not the slightest evidence on the record to that effect. From this he inferred that Gurdeosingh is not the right type of person to have the custody of the child. The lower court thereafter takes up the controversy between the parties as to whether Daulat Kaur was turned out of the house by the husband or she left the husband's house on her tree will. On this controversy he records the finding in favour of Mst. Daulat Kaur. Finally he referred to a number of cases which lay down the various considerations which have to be borne in mind in deciding an application under Section 25, and while applying the principles of these cases he recorded that Gurdeosingh having contracted the second marriage and the minor being required to remain with the step-mother cannot be expected to be properly looked after. According to him the affection which, is expected of the natural mother is necessary for the child at the tender age. In this view of the matter he allowed the application and directed that the minor son should be delivered into the custody of the petitioner Daulat Kaur. Gurdeosingh, the non-petitioner has come in appeal.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Thanchand Mehta for the appellant and Mr. Hukam Chand Jain on behalf of the respondent. Taking up the legal aspect of the case first, the learned counsel for the parties pressed for my consideration the authorities relied upon by the trial court and cited a few additional authorities and wanted to cite more. It is, however, unnecessary to notice all these authorities and to discuss them. However, no case of this Court having been cited before me, I consfder it neces-sary to lay down the principles deducible from these cases governing applications under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act: