Surinder Mohan Joshi and Another vs Sushil Kumar Sharma and Another

S.S. Saron, J.—This appeal has been filed by Surinder Mohan Joshi and Madhu Joshi against the judgment and order dated 9.1.1999 passed by the learned Guardian Judge, Ambala City whereby their application seeking custody of the minor child namely Varun who was born on 15.7.1985 out of the wedlock between the appellants on the basis of natural guardianship has been dismissed. The appellants are husband and wife and they claimed custody of their minor child namely Varun who was born on 15.7.1985. The minor child at the time of filing the petition which was filed on 16.9.1986 was in the custody of respondents Sushil Kumar Sharma and his wife Smt. Parkash Sharma. According to the appellants they had good relations with the respondents and there was an understanding between them that the minor child namely Varun would be given in adoption to the respondents. Surinder Mohan Joshi (appellant No. 1) had even purchased stamp papers for the said purpose on 16.9.1985 and an adoption deed was drafted. However, the same could not be executed between the parties because he could not persuade his wife to give the minor child namely Varun in adoption to the respondents. Since the time of birth of the child, the respondents had been visiting the house of the appellants and on some occasions had taken him to their house. The appellants did not suspect any foul play on the part of the respondents till the time when the respondents turned down their request to return the custody of the minor. Having failed to secure the custody, the petition was filed.

The respondents contested the petition. It was stated that the appellants had voluntarily given the minor child in adoption to them in a ceremony performed on 16.9.1985. Since then they were treating the minor to be their adopted child. The minor was looked after by them and the appellants had no right to claim his custody.

The learned Guardian Judge after considering the evidence and material on record dismissed the petition of the appellants. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The appeal was admitted on 29.9.2000 and no stay was granted.

It is now admitted case of the parties that the minor has attained the age of majority. Therefore, it is for him to decide as to where he wants to live and the appellants cannot seek his custody at this stage. Therefore, the present appeal has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.