Pappu Ram vs Chunni Lal

The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Pappu Ram for assailing the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2020 passed by the Family

Judge No.1, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No.407/2017 whereby the application preferred by the respondent Chunni Lal under Section 7 read with

Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 was accepted and the Guardianship of his minor child Layra @ Bhagwati was granted to him.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at the Bar by Shri Kaushal Gautam, learned counsel representing the appellant and have

gone through the material available on record.

He has primarily contended that the child was living in the guardianship of Rajkumari, wife of the appellant, the child’s maternal grandmother and

that she was not heard on the application and thus, the judgment impugned is ex-facie bad in the eye of law.

We have considered the said submission. On going through the impugned judgment, it is apparent that Pappu Ram, being the maternal grand father of

the child, never raised a plea before the Family Court that his wife Smt. Rajkumari was the guardian of the child. Indisputably, the respondent Chunni

Lal, being the father of the child is his natural guardian of first rank. Chunni Lal’s wife Smt. Sangeeta has expired and thus he is the only guardian

of first rank available to take care of the child. As per the statement of Triloka Ram (AW-3), who is the brother of the appellant Pappu Ram, it is

clear that Sangeeta was suffering some ailment viz. tuberculosis. She was forcibly taken to the matrimonial home by the appellant and thereafter all

the medication was stopped due to which her condition deteriorated. On Chunni Lal’s insistence, Pappu Ram got her admitted in the hospital. The

doctor’s chastised Pappu Ram that there was grave risk to the life of Sangeeta and that she should be taken to Jaipur for proper treatment.

However, Pappu Ram did not heed to this medical advice and got Sangeeta discharged from the hospital and took her home where unfortunately she

passed away. Triloka Ram also stated that Pappu Ram is a habitual drunkard who does not offer any love or affection to his child and also does not

take any steps to ensure her well being.

In wake of the above factual scenario, we are of the firm opinion that there was no occasion warranting retaining custody of the minor child with the

appellant herein who is otherwise also not a legal guardian of first category. The respondent Chunni Lal, being the father of the child is said to be a

mason has a reasonably good income and resources and thus, he has the means and capacity to maintain and take care of his child.

In this background, it is our firm opinion that the Judge, Family Court No.1 Bikaner, committed no error either factual or legal while accepting the

application filed by Chunni Lal and granting custody of the child to him by taking recourse of the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The

impugned judgment dated 04.02.2020 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference therein. Thus, the appeal fails and is

rejected as being devoid of merit.

All pending applications are also rejected.