Mohinder Singh vs Chanan Singh

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)

Gurnam Singh and Gurdip Kaur were married in or about the year 1978. Two sons were born to them. In June, 1983, Gurnam Singh unfortunately passed away. The widow Gurdip Kaur left the house of her husband and started staying with her father Chanan Singh. On May 15, 1987, she got married to Pritam Singh. About a year later, Mohinder Singh, the paternal grandfather filed a petition under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of his two grandsons Gursharan Singh and Gurjinder Singh who were 7 years and 51/2 years old, respectively at that time. The trial Court framed the following two issues :

Whether it is in the interest and for the welfare of the minors to hand over their custody to the applicant ? OPA

Relief.

After examination of the evidence, the Court came to a positive finding that respondent Chanan Singh had only 17 kanals of land. He was having a large family of four sons and four married daughters. On account of his liabilities, he did not have the means to take care of the two children. As against this, Mohinder Singh, the paternal grandfather, was living jointly with his four brothers. The wives of his brothers were also staying in the same premises. The five brothers had a joint holding of about 25 acres. He had no other liability. In this situation, it came to the conclusion that it would be in the interest of the minor children to stay with Mohinder Singh, their paternal grandfather, instead of Chanan Singh, maternal grandfather. Accordingly, he accepted the application.

Aggrieved by the judgment, the maternal grandfather Chanan Singh along with Smt. Gurdip Kaur filed an appeal. The learned Single Judge having reversed the judgment, Mohinder Singh has filed the present letters patent appeal.

Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are totally contrary to the evidence on record. There is not even a suggestion of the kind that the paternal grandfather was a man of loose habits so as to be unable to take care of his grandsons. On the other hand, Mr. K.S. Grewal, learned Counsel for the respondents, has contended that there is no lady in the house of appellant Mohinder Singh who may be in a position to cook food, wash clothes and take care of the two children.

Admittedly, Smt. Gurdip Kaur, the mother of two children had got married to Pritam Singh on May 15, 1987. It is also not disputed that Pritam Singh had two daughters at the time of his marriage to Smt. Gurdip Kaur. She had been blessed with another daughter after her marriage to Pritam Singh. Thus, there is enough on her plate and she is not in a position to take care of her sons. Still further, there is nothing on the record to indicate that Chanan Singh, the maternal grandfather, has enough resources to meet the ever rising expenses on account of education and upbringing of the two children. A small piece of land measuring 17 kanals is the basic source of income for Chanan Singh and his four sons. He has also four daughters. They are undoubtedly married. But undeniably one has to spend something or the other every now and then even for the married daughters. As against this, appellant Mohinder Singh has certainly better means than respondent Chanan Singh. In this situation, it is difficult to find any fault with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court.

Learned Single Judge has reversed those findings on the ground that Mohinder Singh was a person with "a bad character who would not spare his own daughterinlaw." Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended and we think rightly that this observation is wholly baseless. Even the respondents had not raised such a plea in their written statement. There is no evidence which may even remotely suggest that the appellant was not a person with a good character. In fact, Mr. K.S. Grewal, learned Counsel for the respondents, has very fairly and categorically stated in Court that he would have no objection if all the adverse observations made by the learned Single Judge against the appellant are expunged from the order. It is, thus, clear that the findings of the learned Single Judge cannot be supported by any material on the record. These cannot, thus, be sustained. Equally, the conclusion, based on these observations, that it will be unjust to appoint Mohinder Singh as the guardian, is untenable. We accordingly set aside the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.

Mr. Grewal points out that the appellant had initially agreed to put both the grand children in a boarding school and to bear the expenses. However, he had later on backed out. Still further, learned Counsel has pointed out that respondent Chanan Singh has already taken care of the children and educated them suitably. On the other hand, Mr. Doabia points out that it was at the asking of the two children that the appellant had wished to keep them with him instead of putting them in a boarding school. He further submits that even the appellant would take care of the education of the children.

After hearing Counsel for the parties, we find that both the children are studying at present. The elder one has already passed ten plus one examination while the younger child has passed his matriculation examination. In our view, both the children should be permitted to compelete their present course of study. In other words, the elder child Gursharan Singh would complete his plus two course and then go to the appellant. Similarly, Gurjinder Singh, younger child, would continue his study for the next two years and go to the appellant after completing the course. Thereafter, the appellant would take care of their further education and get them admitted to a college. Still further, we also clarify that even respondent Chanan Singh shall be entitled to meet both the children at least once every month after they come to the custody of the appellant. Both the children shall spend at least one vacation in a year with respondent Chanan Singh. Equally, at present, the appellant shall be entitled to meet the children, once every month. Both the children would go and spend next vacation with the appellant is his house. Still further, we also record that the appellant has undertaken to make a fixed deposit to Rs. 10,000/ each in the names of both the children within a month from today.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.