MAHENDRA MODI Vs. GOBARDHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the opposite party-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 24-6-1996 passed in Guardianship Case No. 1 of 1991 by Shri Motilal Hansdah, 1st Additional District Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the said guardianship case was allowed appointing applicant-respondent as guardian of the.person of Master Vikram.

(2.) The applicant-respondent, who is natural material grand father of Master Vikram, had filed the said guardianship case under Section 7 of the Guardianship and Wards act, 1890 for his appointment as guardian of the person of the said minor.

(3.) The case of the applicant-respondent, in brief, is that the marriage of his daughter Anju was solemnized with opposite party- respondent Mahendra Modi on 7-2-1988 in accordance with Hindu religion and rites and she had gone to her matrimonial home in the company of her husband on the following day of the marriage and in the said marriage he had met all the demands of the opposite party-respondent and his father and other family members and they demanded Maruti Car saying that for an I.P.S. boy the presentation of the Maruti Car by way of dowry is inconsonance with his prestigious position and keeping in view the welfare of Anju, the applicant-respondent promised to arrange for a Maruti Car when his economic condition improves after meeting the essential obligations and goaded with the limitleas greed, the opposite party-appellant and his family members perpetrated cruelty and torture upon Anju and Master Vikram was born to Anju out of his wedlock but she was not kept with love and affection. It is alleged that Anju gave birth to Master Vikram at Giridih on 1-8-1990 as she apprehended some danger in her matrimonial home. The opposite party-appellant was posted as Superintendent of Police, Intelligence at Kanpur and after the birth of the said child Anju was taken to Kanpur. It is alleged that the opposite party-appellant did not care to come to see the said child but to restore peace and happiness Anju and her son were sent to Kanpur by the applicant but all the attempts went in vain and ultimately she was done to death. It is alleged that taking advantage of his position, the opposite party-appellant and his family members committed the murder of Anju and on getting said information, this applicant-respondent sent his son Jai Nandan Lal to ascertain the truth and to file a case against the persons responsible for the culpable homicide of Anju and a case under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code was lodged by Jai Nandan Lal aforesaid before Nawabganj (Kanpur) Police Station which bears Nawabganj (Kanpur) Police Station Case No. 33 of 1991 and the opposite party-appellant has deputed out-laws and hoodlums to liquidate lives of all those who displayed courage to pursue the said case. Further case of the applicant-respondent is that the opposite party-respondent came to Giridih on 7-2-1991 and handed over the newly born son Master Vikram, then aged about seven months, to this applicant-respondent uttering that the said child is useless for him and his presence of his house would be an impediment to his ambition to re-solemnize his marriage and since then, the said child is properly being looked after and being brought up by his applicant-respondent, who is the material grand father of the said child which has necessitated for his appointment as the legal guardian of the person of the said child keeping in view the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child as there is every likelihood of the opposite parry-appellant creating more mischief on this score. It is also alleged that the opposite party-appellant being the natural guardian of the said child figures as the main accused on the charge of the commission of murder of his lawfully wedded wife Anju for or- in connection with the demand of dowry and he is also not interested in keeping the said child and looking after his welfare and his attitude may culminate in the premature death of the said child and it is neither safe nor proper to entrust the said child to the opposite party-appellant under his guardianship.