JOT RAM Vs. TARU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a miscellaneous appeal against the order of learned Senior Civil Judge. Ganganagar, dated December 23, 1967, in civil miscellaneous case No. 41 of 1967, by which he ordered that the wards, Mahendra and Kamla, minor children of Taru Ram, be returned to the custody of thetr natural guardian.

(2.) THE facts of this case can be ranged within a narrow compass. Taru -Ram, it appears, filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar, on June 2, 1967, alleging that Jot Ram had been forcibly keeping both his minor children, Mahendra and Kamla, for sometime. The applicant being their natural guardian, the custody of his children should, therefore, be ordered to be delivered to him. The non -applicant Jot Ram submitted a reply, on September 22, 1967, to the effect that the mother of the two children had expired. After the death of their mother Taru Ram contracted a second marriage. The step -mother ill -treated the minors. Taru Ram was under the influence of bad characters and was squandering away the ancestral property to the determent of the minors' interest. He further stated that Taru -Ram had executed a document Ex. A. 1, dated August 24, 1966, in the presence of the Panchayat by which he agreed to give 21 1/2 Bighas of land to his minor son Mahendra. It was also agreed by Taru Ram that his minor children would be brought up by Mst. Amri, who was the real sister of the minors' deceased mother, vide Ex. A. 2, dated March 6, 1967. It was further stated that Mu. Kalawati, the second wife of Taru Ram, wanted to grab the entire ancestral property. The non -petitioner wanted to bring up the children in their own interest and welfare. He had no personal interest in their property. It was, in the end, prayed that the application filed by Taru Ram should be dismissed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against that judgement, Jot Ram has filed this, appeal. Contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that paramount consideration in a matter like this is the welfare of the children. Since Taru Ram has contracted another marriage and Mst. Kalawati is not treating the children loving and effectionately, the application filed by Taru Ram, under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, should have been dismissed and no order should have been passed that the minors should be made over to Taru Ram. Learned Counsel for the opposite side supported the impugned order of the court below.