MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 1 of 18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17th July, 2023
% Pronounced on: 01st September, 2023
+ MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 with CM APPL. 34442/2018 &
41653/2021
MOHD. IRSHAD & ANR. ….. Appellants
Through: Mr.Jai Bansal, Advocate along with
appellants in person.
versus
NADEEM ….. Respondent
Through: Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
1984 has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order dated
21.03.2018 vide which the petition filed by the appellants/maternal
grandparents of the minor child to be appointed as ‘Guardian’ and to seek
permanent custody was dismissed.
2. The factual matrix in brief is that a petition under Section 7 read
with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was filed on behalf
of the maternal grandparents/appellants to be appointed as Guardian and
for permanent custody of their grandson Master Rehan. The appellants’
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 2 of 18
daughter Quamar Jahan was married to the respondent herein on
25.11.2007 and the couple was blessed with one son Master Rehan on
24.11.2008. According to the appellants, Quamar Jahan, their daughter
was killed by the respondent on account of dowry demand and harassment
within 7 years of marriage i.e. on 22.01.2010. The FIR under Sections
304-B/34 IPC was registered at P.S.Jyoti Nagar against the respondent
and his parents. The respondent eloped with the child. However,
subsequently, the respondent and his parents were arrested and sent to
judicial custody.
3. Immediately after the respondent and his parents were sent to jail,
the Guardianship Petition was filed by maternal grandparents/appellants
on 24.02.2010 seeking the custody of the child. Initially, the other family
members of the respondent had the custody of Master Rehan as the
respondent was absconding. Child was recovered on 30.05.2010 and was
handed over to the appellants on the same day and since then, the child is
in their continuous custody.
4. The respondent and his other family members were acquitted in the
criminal case on 07.11.2012. The appellants have however, preferred a
criminal Appeal against the acquittal of the respondent and his family
members and the same has been admitted by this Court.
5. On 18.08.2012, the respondent filed an application seeking interim
custody of the child from the appellants under Section 12 of the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890 on the premise that he and his family members have
been acquitted in criminal case. The learned Judge, Family Courts
initially directed the custody of the child to be handed over to respondent
from June, 2013 vide Order dated 04.03.2013. However, the Order was
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 3 of 18
set aside by this Court in CM Petition No. 558/13 vide Order dated
22.05.2013 and the matter was remanded back to be decided afresh. The
Judge, Family Courts vide Order dated 29.05.2013 directed the custody of
the child to remain with the maternal grandparents/appellants. The
respondent filed two SLP(s) bearing Nos. 19464/2013 and 19465/2013
before the Supreme Court of India challenging the Orders dated
22.05.2013 of this Court and 29.05.2013 of Family Court, but they also
got dismissed by the Apex Court on 11.06.2013.
6. The appellants claimed the custody of the child on the ground that
the acquittal of the respondent in criminal case is under challenge before
this Court. The custody of the child has always been with the appellants
and it is only after the acquittal that the respondent ever sought the
transfer of the custody. There has been no change in circumstance since
the custody of the child has been permitted to be with the maternal
grandparents. It was also claimed that the respondent has been cruel to
their daughter and as such, is not capable to keep the custody of the child.
It was also claimed that the child was being used as a puppet to
compromise with the respondent and his family members in the criminal
case.
7. The appellants further asserted that the respondent and his family
members are neither well educated, well mannered nor having etiquettes.
8. Since beginning their attitude was cruel which was manifested in
their behaviour towards the daughter of the appellants. Moreover, they
displayed rude behaviour and negligent attitude even towards the
grandson. It was also claimed that there was every possibility that career
of the child would be ruined if the child is allowed to stay with the
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 4 of 18
respondent. On the other hand, the appellants claimed that they are well
educated and reputed and the career and future prospects of the child
would be very well looked after if the custody is given to the appellants.
Hence, the petition was filed by the appellants under Section 7 read with
Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking their
appointment as Guardian of the minor child and also his permanent
custody.
9. The petition was contested by the respondent who asserted that
the petition was an abuse of the process of the Court as the material facts
have been concealed by the appellants/petitioners. It was claimed that the
true facts have not been disclosed in the appeal. The appellants are old
aged persons who are incapable of taking care of the minor child and the
appeal must be dismissed on this ground itself. It was further asserted that
the petition was filed with the sole motive of harassment and causing
humiliation to the respondent and his family members. They are legally
entitled to keep the custody of the child who have always been in their
care and custody. It is explained that on registration of FIR and arrest of
the respondent and his family members, the custody of the child was
handed over by them to Moinuddin and Fahmida, Tau and Tai of the
respondent and the child was living in their care and custody. It is further
explained that the police directed the Tau and Tai of the respondent to
produce the child before the Court on 03.07.2010 on which date, the
custody of the child was handed over to the appellants. Thereafter, the
Tau and Tai (Paternal Uncle and Aunt) of the respondent moved an
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as party and also
moved an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 5 of 18
1890 and they were impleaded as party i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
10. The father and mother of the respondent herein came to know that
during the pendency of the Guardianship Petition, the custody of the child
has been taken away from paternal uncle and aunt by the Order of the
Court. On being released on bail vide order dated 26.09.2012, the names
of previous respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Tau and Tai of the respondent
were deleted and instead, the parents of the respondent were impleaded as
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein.
11. It was contended on behalf of the respondents therein that the
deceased Quamar Jahan, wife of the respondent No.1 was suffering from
mental illness and she was under treatment from various hospitals as is
evident from the medical treatment record. It was further explained by the
respondents that the fact of mental ailment of the deceased/wife of the
respondent was not disclosed at the time of marriage and it came to the
knowledge of the respondent and his parents only thereafter. It is denied
that the deceased Quamar Jahan was abandoned by the respondent but it is
claimed that he took care of her to the best of his ability and took her to
the various hospitals for treatment. It was unfortunate that she committed
suicide by jumping from the house of the respondent. It is further asserted
that during her life time, no complaint whatsoever was made by the
appellants that their daughter was being harassed for dowry and the false
allegations against the respondent only emerged after her sad demise. It
was also explained that the respondent had been acquitted by the
judgment dated 07.11.2012 as the allegations of cruelty by the respondent
could not be proved and it was established that the wife of the respondent
was suffering from mental illness and she was taking regular treatment
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 6 of 18
from Holy Family Hospital, IHBAS and other private clinics.
12. The respondent has asserted that during the life time of the daughter
of the appellants and thereafter, the respondent and his parents have great
love and affection towards the child and the respondent has been
maintaining him well by providing him all the facilities and meeting his
requirements. The future of the child would be spoiled if the custody
remains with the maternal grandparents of the child as they cannot
provide better education, atmosphere and status since they have no source
of income even to meet his daily requirements. The custody of the child
was requested to be handed over to the respondent/father being the natural
guardian of the child.
13. The respondent/father has further stated that he is 12th class pass
and he was running a mobile shop under the name and style of M/s.
N.K.Mobile Shop & Training Centre, Maujpur, Delhi. While he was in
judicial custody in the case under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, his
business was handed over to his younger brother namely Naved and after
being released from judicial custody, he has continued with the business
of mobile shop along with his brother and is earning more than
Rs.25,000/- per month. The respondent No.2 (therein) Naimuddin is
doing his business and has an independent status and earning about
Rs.30,000/- per month. They have also got moveable and immovable
properties in their names and are in sound financial position in all manner
and in a position to provide good care to the child. It was therefore
submitted that the Guardianship Petition filed by the appellants was liable
to be dismissed and the custody of the child must be permitted to remain
with the respondent/father being the Natural Guardian of the child.
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 7 of 18
14. On the pleadings, the issues were framed by the Family Court on
10.04.2013 as under: –
“1. Whether it is in the interest and welfare of the minor child
Master Rehan to appoint the petitioners as the guardian of his
person and property as well as to hand over his permanent
custody to them? OPP.
2. Relief.”
15. The appellants examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2 in addition
to their two sons PW-3 Mohd. Imran and PW-4 Mohd. Irfan. The
respondent No. 1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW-1/A.
16. The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts after due consideration
of the entire evidence concluded that the natural parents under law like
Hindu Minority & Adoption Act, 1956 and Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 have a preferential right for the custody of a child but the term
‘Guardian’ under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 makes a deviation in as
much as it provides that the custody of the child may not always be with
the natural parents and the custody/guardianship may be decided on the
anvil of the paramount interest and welfare of the child.
17. The learned Principal Judge observed that the child during his
interaction expressed his willingness to remain with the maternal
grandparents. Further, the child has been in continuous custody with the
maternal grandparents from 2010 when he was barely 1½ years old and
had been made to believe that the respondent, his father had killed his
mother. The evidence as led by the parties reflected that the appellants had
a serious grudge against the respondent/father. Also aside from the
criminal case under Section 498-A IPC, the respondent has not been
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 8 of 18
shown to have any criminal background and there is no disqualification of
the respondent has been proved. It was concluded that there can be no
comparison of love and affection of a natural parent of a child to any other
relative and the custody should not be denied unless there are imperative
reasons. Contentions that the respondent has not contributed financially
and he was least concerned about the well being of the child was rejected
by observing that the terms between the parties were still bitter and they
did not see each other eye to eye. The record reflected that after being
released from judicial custody, he had moved an application seeking
custody of the child and had continued to visit him for about one year.
Also, he has been rigorously pursuing the litigation and there exists no
reason to deprive him from the custody of the child. Hence, the
Guardianship Petition filed by the appellants/maternal Grandparents was
dismissed.
18. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Guardianship Petition, the
present Appeal has been filed. The main grounds agitated by the
appellants are that by repeated change of custody, the child is being made
a shuttle cock which is not in his interest. The respondent and his family
members have no love and affection for the child. The child has been in
custody with the appellants since he was about 1½ years old and at the
time of filing of the Appeal, he was about 10 years old. He, during
interaction with the Court, had categorically expressed his unwillingness
to reside with the respondent. The learned Family Judge, Family Courts
has failed to appreciate the intelligent preference of the child who had
expressed his desire to remain with the appellants. Moreover, the
respondent has got remarried and has a child from the second marriage
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 9 of 18
which incapacitates him from taking the custody of the child Master
Rehan. Moreover, the respondent is only 8th Pass and has no source of
income and has also sold his house and shop during the pendency of the
Guardianship Petition. The respondent was incompetent to take care of
his wife and is also unable to take care of the child. It is further agitated
that the though the respondent has claimed that he has two mobile
showrooms, but he has failed to place any documents in support thereof.
It has been erroneously observed in the impugned judgment that the
respondent is well educated when he is barely even 8th Pass. It is further
contended that the respondent is claiming the custody of the child on the
ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case but the Appeal
against the said acquittal is still pending in this Court and the future fate of
the respondent is still uncertain.
19. Finally, it is stated that the child who has been living with the
appellants for more than 8 years, has deep love and affection for them and
is being well taken care of by the appellants. Uprooting the child now
would cause tremendous trauma to the child who has already lost his
mother. Furthermore, the appellants have never denied any access or
visitation rights to the respondent. During the pendency of the
Guardianship Petition, the respondent could have developed affection and
taken the custody, however, the respondent never came forward to avail
the visitation rights. It is asserted that the respondent cannot claim the
custody of the child as a right merely because he is the natural father. He
has neither any education nor any income to able to ensure the welfare of
the child.
20. Reliance has been placed in the judgments in Ruchi Majoo Vs.
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 10 of 18
Sanjeev Majoo (2011) 6 SCC 479, Anjali Kapoor Vs. Rajiv Baijal (2009)
7 SCC 322, Muthuswami Chettiar Vs. K.K.Chinna Muthuswami
Moopanar AIR 1935 MAD 195, Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi Vs.
Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi 1992 (3) SCC 573, Yogesh Kumar
Gupta Vs. M.K.Agarwal and Anr. AIR 2009 UTR 30, Nil Ran Kundu Vs.
Abhijit Kundu 2008 AIR SCW 5769, A.Gopalan Vs. Thattoli Rajan ILR
1995 (1) Kerala 214 and Tarun Ranjan Majumdar and Another Vs.
Siddhartha Datta AIR 1991 Cal 76 in support of the assertions.
21. The appeal has been opposed by the respondent who has asserted
that he was arrested in the false case under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
on the allegations of having caused dowry death of his wife. However,
from the trial, it has been established that his wife was suffering from
mental ailments and had committed suicide. No role of culpability could
be attributed to the respondent. Furthermore, the custody of the child had
been taken away from him merely because he was charged with a criminal
offence. However, he being the natural father, is best suited to ensure the
welfare of the child having regard to not only to his circumstances but
also that the appellants have their old age against them. It is submitted
that the Guardianship Petition filed by the appellants, has been rightly
dismissed.
22. Submissions heard.
23. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 deals with two aspects in
regard to a minor child. The first aspect is the appointment/declaration of
the Guardian under Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and
second aspect is the interim and permanent custody of the child under
Sections 12 and 25 respectively of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 11 of 18
24. The appointment of a Guardian and the Custody is defined under
different Sections of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which delineate the factors to be
considered for determining the Guardianship and/or the Custody and the
two rest on different parameters.
25. Section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
defines the ‘Minor’ and ‘Guardian’ as under:-
“4. Definitions.—(a) “minor” means a person who has not
completed the age of eighteen years;
(b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person
of a minor or of his property or of both his person and
property, and includes—
(i) a natural guardian,
(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or
mother,
(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and
(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any
enactment relating to any Court of wards.
(c) “natural guardian” means any of the guardians mentioned
in Section 6.”
26. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as ‘HMAG Act, 1956’) defines the Natural
Guardian of a Hindu Minor to be the father, and after him, the mother;
provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of
five years shall ordinarily be with the mother.
27. Proviso to Section 6 of the HMAG Act, 1956 defines the
circumstances in which a person would not be entitled to act as the
Natural Guardian of a minor and reads as under:-
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 12 of 18
“Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural
guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section—
(a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or
(b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world
by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or
sanyasi).”
28. Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 confers the powers
on the Court to appoint a Guardian of his person or property or both of the
minor or declare a person to be such Guardian.
29. Therefore, there are two kinds of remedies visualized under Section
7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 of a Declaration which is in
recognition of a pre-existing right of that person to be declared as a
Guardian, while appointment entails no pre-existing right in the person
who has applied to be the Guardian.
30. The factors to be taken into consideration while appointing
Guardian is explained in Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 which reads as under:-
“17. Matter to be considered by the Court in appointing
guardian.- (1) In appointing or declaring the guardian of a
minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section,
be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor
is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of
the minor.
In considering what will be for the welfare of the minor, the
Courts shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the
minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and
his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased
parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed
guardian with the minor or his property.
If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 13 of 18
Court may consider that preference.
The Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a
guardian against his will.”
31. From the conjoint reading of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it can be concluded
that the natural father is the de-facto and de-jure Guardian of a minor but
under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, if it is considered that it is in the
interest and welfare of the child that some other person may be appointed
as a Guardian, the Court may do so after considering the interest and
welfare of the child and his intelligent preference. To appoint any person
as a Guardian, it follows as precursor that the natural father who is the
Guardian of a minor in terms of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 shall not be disqualified till such time unless he is found to be
unfit to ensure the welfare of the child. The High Court of Madras in the
case of N. Palanisami vs. A. Palaniswamy 1998 (III) CTC 158, held:
“if there is any proof that the father has disentitled himself for
the custody, that is altogether a different matter. When the court
considers the welfare of the minor child, it does not mean the
opinion of the minor child. Normally when the minor child is
brought to court from the custody of grandfather or third party
especially when the minor child has been allowed to continue
for quite some time in such custody, as a young child, his
preference will be to continue the status quo but the court has to
consider the present and future of the minor child, not merely
the close proximity of the child with the person having
custody.”
32. Similarly, this court in the case of Lekh Raj Kukreja vs. Raymon
AIR 1989 Del 246 held: –
“Ordinarily custody should go to natural guardian. However,
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 14 of 18
there may be cases where there is a conflict in claim of father as
natural guardian of the male child and welfare of the child.
Such cases are far and few. It is only in extreme case of
illiteracy, poverty or delinquency of the father that his claim to
the custody of child can be disregarded. Otherwise the courts
would strain to reconcile the claim of the father based on his
right as natural guardian of the male child with the welfare of
the child the balance tilting in favor of the welfare of the child it
being of paramount and supreme importance.”
33. In this backdrop, the respective case of the parties may be
considered. Indisputably, respondent is the natural father of the child who
was born on 24.11.2008. The destiny had its own role to play and soon
after the marriage, the wife of respondent/mother of the child died an
unnatural death on 22.01.2010. While a criminal case under Section
498-A/34 IPC got registered on 22.01.2010 and the respondent along with
other co-accused i.e., his family members were put under arrest, the
circumstances which so prevailed, compelled the custody of the child who
was merely 1½ years old at that time, to be handed over to Tau and Tai of
the respondent. However, soon thereafter, the Guardianship Petition was
filed by the maternal grandparents who were naturally rattled by the
unfortunate and untimely demise of their daughter and sought the custody
of the minor. During the trial, the child was produced by Tau and Tai of
the respondent before the Court and the custody was handed over to the
appellants/maternal Grandparents. There could not have been any other
better alternative considering the child in those difficult times, the custody
of the child was given to his maternal grandparents/appellants rather than
being in the custody of the relatives of the father. The respondent was
admitted to bail on 26.09.2012 and immediately thereafter, he moved an
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 15 of 18
application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to seek
the custody of the child. Considering the prevailing acrimony amongst
the parties and also that the respondent was facing trial for the unnatural
death of his wife and also that the child was of a tender age and had been
away from the custody of the respondent, he was granted visitation rights
though apparently they were not meaningful or very fruitful in blossoming
love and affection between the child and the respondent/father. The
respondent was acquitted in the criminal case on 07.11.2012 but the
matter has not ended as the appeal against the said acquittal is pending in
this Court.
34. In this backdrop, one needs to consider if the respondent has
suffered any disqualification for losing the status of a Natural Guardian.
Aside from a criminal trial, there is no other disqualification which has
been brought on record. The other aspect that has been agitated is that he
has since got remarried and has a child from his second marriage,
therefore, he cannot be termed as a Natural Guardian. However, mere
second marriage of the father in the circumstances when he has lost his
first wife, cannot be held per-se a disqualification from his continuing to
be a Natural Guardian. No circumstance whatsoever has been brought on
record to disqualify the respondent from being a Natural Guardian. The
learned Principal Judge, Family Courts has thus rightly denied the
appellants/maternal grandparents to be appointed as the Guardian of the
minor.
35. The second aspect however is the custody of the minor child. It is
not denied that the child was as 1½ years old since when the appellants
are having his custody. Even though the respondent was released on bail
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 16 of 18
on 26.09.2012 and has been acquitted in the criminal case on 07.11.2012,
his endeavour to develop the affection with the child, has not yielded
much result. The child since infancy has been in custody of the
appellants. When we had interaction with the child in the Chamber who is
now about 15 years of age, he revealed that he felt alienated from the
father and was comfortable in the custody of the appellants and was being
well looked after by them.
36. It may be observed that undeniably there can be no substitute to the
affection of a natural parent. No doubt, the maternal grandparents may
have immense love and affection towards the child, but it cannot
substitute the love and affection of a natural parent. Even the disparity in
the financial status cannot be a relevant factor for denying the custody of a
child to the natural parent. However, in the matters of Guardianship and
Custody, we are confronted with the dilemma where the logic may say
that the child must be in the custody of his father, but the circumstances
and the intelligent preference of the child points otherwise. It may not be
in the interest and welfare of the child to uproot him from the family
where he is happily entrenched since the age of 1½ years.
37. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lahari Sakhamuri vs. Sobhan
Kodali in Civil Appeal No(s). 3135-316/2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
No(s). 15892-15893/2-18), held as under:
“Divorce and custody battles can become quagmire and it is
heart wrenching to see that the innocent child is the ultimate
sufferer who gets caught up in the legal and psychological
battle between the parents. The eventful agreement about
custody may often be a reflection of the parents’ interests,
rather than the child’s. The issue in a child custody dispute is
what will become of the child, but ordinarily the child is not a
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 17 of 18
true participant in the process. While the best interests
principle requires that the primary focus be on the interests of
the child, the child ordinarily does not define those interests
himself or does he have representation in the ordinary sense.”
38. The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts while giving a definite
finding of denying the claim of the appellants to be appointed as
Guardian, has unfortunately not considered the aspect of custody while
dismissing the petition of the appellants.
39. In the backdrop as discussed above, it is not considered in the
interest and welfare of the child to uproot him completely at this stage,
yet, as already discussed above, there can be no substitute to the parental
love and affection and thus, it is considered appropriate that initially
limited visitation rights be given to the respondent which may be revisited after one year on the application of the respondent/father of the
child if the circumstances so justifies.
40. We, therefore, direct that the respondent/father shall have a right to
meet the child on every first and third Saturday in the Children Room of
the Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi between 3 to 5 PM. In
case the child is unable to come for visitation right on any Saturday, the
meeting shall be held on the next working Saturday. The said
arrangement shall continue for a period of 3 months from today,
thereafter, timings shall be from 03:00 P.M. to 07:00 P.M. till further
orders. However, the parties shall be at liberty to adjust the timings
dependent upon the suitability of both the parties.
41. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal for appointment of
the appellants as Guardian but modify the impugned judgment in regard to
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 18 of 18
the custody in the aforesaid terms.
42. The appeal along with pending applications is disposed of
accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 01, 2023
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17th July, 2023
% Pronounced on: 01st September, 2023
+ MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 with CM APPL. 34442/2018 &
41653/2021
MOHD. IRSHAD & ANR. ….. Appellants
Through: Mr.Jai Bansal, Advocate along with
appellants in person.
versus
NADEEM ….. Respondent
Through: Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
1984 has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order dated
21.03.2018 vide which the petition filed by the appellants/maternal
grandparents of the minor child to be appointed as ‘Guardian’ and to seek
permanent custody was dismissed.
2. The factual matrix in brief is that a petition under Section 7 read
with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was filed on behalf
of the maternal grandparents/appellants to be appointed as Guardian and
for permanent custody of their grandson Master Rehan. The appellants’
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 2 of 18
daughter Quamar Jahan was married to the respondent herein on
25.11.2007 and the couple was blessed with one son Master Rehan on
24.11.2008. According to the appellants, Quamar Jahan, their daughter
was killed by the respondent on account of dowry demand and harassment
within 7 years of marriage i.e. on 22.01.2010. The FIR under Sections
304-B/34 IPC was registered at P.S.Jyoti Nagar against the respondent
and his parents. The respondent eloped with the child. However,
subsequently, the respondent and his parents were arrested and sent to
judicial custody.
3. Immediately after the respondent and his parents were sent to jail,
the Guardianship Petition was filed by maternal grandparents/appellants
on 24.02.2010 seeking the custody of the child. Initially, the other family
members of the respondent had the custody of Master Rehan as the
respondent was absconding. Child was recovered on 30.05.2010 and was
handed over to the appellants on the same day and since then, the child is
in their continuous custody.
4. The respondent and his other family members were acquitted in the
criminal case on 07.11.2012. The appellants have however, preferred a
criminal Appeal against the acquittal of the respondent and his family
members and the same has been admitted by this Court.
5. On 18.08.2012, the respondent filed an application seeking interim
custody of the child from the appellants under Section 12 of the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890 on the premise that he and his family members have
been acquitted in criminal case. The learned Judge, Family Courts
initially directed the custody of the child to be handed over to respondent
from June, 2013 vide Order dated 04.03.2013. However, the Order was
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 3 of 18
set aside by this Court in CM Petition No. 558/13 vide Order dated
22.05.2013 and the matter was remanded back to be decided afresh. The
Judge, Family Courts vide Order dated 29.05.2013 directed the custody of
the child to remain with the maternal grandparents/appellants. The
respondent filed two SLP(s) bearing Nos. 19464/2013 and 19465/2013
before the Supreme Court of India challenging the Orders dated
22.05.2013 of this Court and 29.05.2013 of Family Court, but they also
got dismissed by the Apex Court on 11.06.2013.
6. The appellants claimed the custody of the child on the ground that
the acquittal of the respondent in criminal case is under challenge before
this Court. The custody of the child has always been with the appellants
and it is only after the acquittal that the respondent ever sought the
transfer of the custody. There has been no change in circumstance since
the custody of the child has been permitted to be with the maternal
grandparents. It was also claimed that the respondent has been cruel to
their daughter and as such, is not capable to keep the custody of the child.
It was also claimed that the child was being used as a puppet to
compromise with the respondent and his family members in the criminal
case.
7. The appellants further asserted that the respondent and his family
members are neither well educated, well mannered nor having etiquettes.
8. Since beginning their attitude was cruel which was manifested in
their behaviour towards the daughter of the appellants. Moreover, they
displayed rude behaviour and negligent attitude even towards the
grandson. It was also claimed that there was every possibility that career
of the child would be ruined if the child is allowed to stay with the
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 4 of 18
respondent. On the other hand, the appellants claimed that they are well
educated and reputed and the career and future prospects of the child
would be very well looked after if the custody is given to the appellants.
Hence, the petition was filed by the appellants under Section 7 read with
Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking their
appointment as Guardian of the minor child and also his permanent
custody.
9. The petition was contested by the respondent who asserted that
the petition was an abuse of the process of the Court as the material facts
have been concealed by the appellants/petitioners. It was claimed that the
true facts have not been disclosed in the appeal. The appellants are old
aged persons who are incapable of taking care of the minor child and the
appeal must be dismissed on this ground itself. It was further asserted that
the petition was filed with the sole motive of harassment and causing
humiliation to the respondent and his family members. They are legally
entitled to keep the custody of the child who have always been in their
care and custody. It is explained that on registration of FIR and arrest of
the respondent and his family members, the custody of the child was
handed over by them to Moinuddin and Fahmida, Tau and Tai of the
respondent and the child was living in their care and custody. It is further
explained that the police directed the Tau and Tai of the respondent to
produce the child before the Court on 03.07.2010 on which date, the
custody of the child was handed over to the appellants. Thereafter, the
Tau and Tai (Paternal Uncle and Aunt) of the respondent moved an
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as party and also
moved an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 5 of 18
1890 and they were impleaded as party i.e. the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
10. The father and mother of the respondent herein came to know that
during the pendency of the Guardianship Petition, the custody of the child
has been taken away from paternal uncle and aunt by the Order of the
Court. On being released on bail vide order dated 26.09.2012, the names
of previous respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Tau and Tai of the respondent
were deleted and instead, the parents of the respondent were impleaded as
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein.
11. It was contended on behalf of the respondents therein that the
deceased Quamar Jahan, wife of the respondent No.1 was suffering from
mental illness and she was under treatment from various hospitals as is
evident from the medical treatment record. It was further explained by the
respondents that the fact of mental ailment of the deceased/wife of the
respondent was not disclosed at the time of marriage and it came to the
knowledge of the respondent and his parents only thereafter. It is denied
that the deceased Quamar Jahan was abandoned by the respondent but it is
claimed that he took care of her to the best of his ability and took her to
the various hospitals for treatment. It was unfortunate that she committed
suicide by jumping from the house of the respondent. It is further asserted
that during her life time, no complaint whatsoever was made by the
appellants that their daughter was being harassed for dowry and the false
allegations against the respondent only emerged after her sad demise. It
was also explained that the respondent had been acquitted by the
judgment dated 07.11.2012 as the allegations of cruelty by the respondent
could not be proved and it was established that the wife of the respondent
was suffering from mental illness and she was taking regular treatment
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 6 of 18
from Holy Family Hospital, IHBAS and other private clinics.
12. The respondent has asserted that during the life time of the daughter
of the appellants and thereafter, the respondent and his parents have great
love and affection towards the child and the respondent has been
maintaining him well by providing him all the facilities and meeting his
requirements. The future of the child would be spoiled if the custody
remains with the maternal grandparents of the child as they cannot
provide better education, atmosphere and status since they have no source
of income even to meet his daily requirements. The custody of the child
was requested to be handed over to the respondent/father being the natural
guardian of the child.
13. The respondent/father has further stated that he is 12th class pass
and he was running a mobile shop under the name and style of M/s.
N.K.Mobile Shop & Training Centre, Maujpur, Delhi. While he was in
judicial custody in the case under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, his
business was handed over to his younger brother namely Naved and after
being released from judicial custody, he has continued with the business
of mobile shop along with his brother and is earning more than
Rs.25,000/- per month. The respondent No.2 (therein) Naimuddin is
doing his business and has an independent status and earning about
Rs.30,000/- per month. They have also got moveable and immovable
properties in their names and are in sound financial position in all manner
and in a position to provide good care to the child. It was therefore
submitted that the Guardianship Petition filed by the appellants was liable
to be dismissed and the custody of the child must be permitted to remain
with the respondent/father being the Natural Guardian of the child.
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 7 of 18
14. On the pleadings, the issues were framed by the Family Court on
10.04.2013 as under: –
“1. Whether it is in the interest and welfare of the minor child
Master Rehan to appoint the petitioners as the guardian of his
person and property as well as to hand over his permanent
custody to them? OPP.
2. Relief.”
15. The appellants examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2 in addition
to their two sons PW-3 Mohd. Imran and PW-4 Mohd. Irfan. The
respondent No. 1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW-1/A.
16. The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts after due consideration
of the entire evidence concluded that the natural parents under law like
Hindu Minority & Adoption Act, 1956 and Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 have a preferential right for the custody of a child but the term
‘Guardian’ under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 makes a deviation in as
much as it provides that the custody of the child may not always be with
the natural parents and the custody/guardianship may be decided on the
anvil of the paramount interest and welfare of the child.
17. The learned Principal Judge observed that the child during his
interaction expressed his willingness to remain with the maternal
grandparents. Further, the child has been in continuous custody with the
maternal grandparents from 2010 when he was barely 1½ years old and
had been made to believe that the respondent, his father had killed his
mother. The evidence as led by the parties reflected that the appellants had
a serious grudge against the respondent/father. Also aside from the
criminal case under Section 498-A IPC, the respondent has not been
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 8 of 18
shown to have any criminal background and there is no disqualification of
the respondent has been proved. It was concluded that there can be no
comparison of love and affection of a natural parent of a child to any other
relative and the custody should not be denied unless there are imperative
reasons. Contentions that the respondent has not contributed financially
and he was least concerned about the well being of the child was rejected
by observing that the terms between the parties were still bitter and they
did not see each other eye to eye. The record reflected that after being
released from judicial custody, he had moved an application seeking
custody of the child and had continued to visit him for about one year.
Also, he has been rigorously pursuing the litigation and there exists no
reason to deprive him from the custody of the child. Hence, the
Guardianship Petition filed by the appellants/maternal Grandparents was
dismissed.
18. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Guardianship Petition, the
present Appeal has been filed. The main grounds agitated by the
appellants are that by repeated change of custody, the child is being made
a shuttle cock which is not in his interest. The respondent and his family
members have no love and affection for the child. The child has been in
custody with the appellants since he was about 1½ years old and at the
time of filing of the Appeal, he was about 10 years old. He, during
interaction with the Court, had categorically expressed his unwillingness
to reside with the respondent. The learned Family Judge, Family Courts
has failed to appreciate the intelligent preference of the child who had
expressed his desire to remain with the appellants. Moreover, the
respondent has got remarried and has a child from the second marriage
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 9 of 18
which incapacitates him from taking the custody of the child Master
Rehan. Moreover, the respondent is only 8th Pass and has no source of
income and has also sold his house and shop during the pendency of the
Guardianship Petition. The respondent was incompetent to take care of
his wife and is also unable to take care of the child. It is further agitated
that the though the respondent has claimed that he has two mobile
showrooms, but he has failed to place any documents in support thereof.
It has been erroneously observed in the impugned judgment that the
respondent is well educated when he is barely even 8th Pass. It is further
contended that the respondent is claiming the custody of the child on the
ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case but the Appeal
against the said acquittal is still pending in this Court and the future fate of
the respondent is still uncertain.
19. Finally, it is stated that the child who has been living with the
appellants for more than 8 years, has deep love and affection for them and
is being well taken care of by the appellants. Uprooting the child now
would cause tremendous trauma to the child who has already lost his
mother. Furthermore, the appellants have never denied any access or
visitation rights to the respondent. During the pendency of the
Guardianship Petition, the respondent could have developed affection and
taken the custody, however, the respondent never came forward to avail
the visitation rights. It is asserted that the respondent cannot claim the
custody of the child as a right merely because he is the natural father. He
has neither any education nor any income to able to ensure the welfare of
the child.
20. Reliance has been placed in the judgments in Ruchi Majoo Vs.
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 10 of 18
Sanjeev Majoo (2011) 6 SCC 479, Anjali Kapoor Vs. Rajiv Baijal (2009)
7 SCC 322, Muthuswami Chettiar Vs. K.K.Chinna Muthuswami
Moopanar AIR 1935 MAD 195, Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi Vs.
Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi 1992 (3) SCC 573, Yogesh Kumar
Gupta Vs. M.K.Agarwal and Anr. AIR 2009 UTR 30, Nil Ran Kundu Vs.
Abhijit Kundu 2008 AIR SCW 5769, A.Gopalan Vs. Thattoli Rajan ILR
1995 (1) Kerala 214 and Tarun Ranjan Majumdar and Another Vs.
Siddhartha Datta AIR 1991 Cal 76 in support of the assertions.
21. The appeal has been opposed by the respondent who has asserted
that he was arrested in the false case under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC
on the allegations of having caused dowry death of his wife. However,
from the trial, it has been established that his wife was suffering from
mental ailments and had committed suicide. No role of culpability could
be attributed to the respondent. Furthermore, the custody of the child had
been taken away from him merely because he was charged with a criminal
offence. However, he being the natural father, is best suited to ensure the
welfare of the child having regard to not only to his circumstances but
also that the appellants have their old age against them. It is submitted
that the Guardianship Petition filed by the appellants, has been rightly
dismissed.
22. Submissions heard.
23. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 deals with two aspects in
regard to a minor child. The first aspect is the appointment/declaration of
the Guardian under Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and
second aspect is the interim and permanent custody of the child under
Sections 12 and 25 respectively of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 11 of 18
24. The appointment of a Guardian and the Custody is defined under
different Sections of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which delineate the factors to be
considered for determining the Guardianship and/or the Custody and the
two rest on different parameters.
25. Section 4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
defines the ‘Minor’ and ‘Guardian’ as under:-
“4. Definitions.—(a) “minor” means a person who has not
completed the age of eighteen years;
(b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person
of a minor or of his property or of both his person and
property, and includes—
(i) a natural guardian,
(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or
mother,
(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and
(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any
enactment relating to any Court of wards.
(c) “natural guardian” means any of the guardians mentioned
in Section 6.”
26. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as ‘HMAG Act, 1956’) defines the Natural
Guardian of a Hindu Minor to be the father, and after him, the mother;
provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of
five years shall ordinarily be with the mother.
27. Proviso to Section 6 of the HMAG Act, 1956 defines the
circumstances in which a person would not be entitled to act as the
Natural Guardian of a minor and reads as under:-
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 12 of 18
“Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural
guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section—
(a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or
(b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world
by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or
sanyasi).”
28. Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 confers the powers
on the Court to appoint a Guardian of his person or property or both of the
minor or declare a person to be such Guardian.
29. Therefore, there are two kinds of remedies visualized under Section
7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 of a Declaration which is in
recognition of a pre-existing right of that person to be declared as a
Guardian, while appointment entails no pre-existing right in the person
who has applied to be the Guardian.
30. The factors to be taken into consideration while appointing
Guardian is explained in Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 which reads as under:-
“17. Matter to be considered by the Court in appointing
guardian.- (1) In appointing or declaring the guardian of a
minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section,
be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor
is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of
the minor.
In considering what will be for the welfare of the minor, the
Courts shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the
minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and
his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased
parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed
guardian with the minor or his property.
If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 13 of 18
Court may consider that preference.
The Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a
guardian against his will.”
31. From the conjoint reading of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it can be concluded
that the natural father is the de-facto and de-jure Guardian of a minor but
under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, if it is considered that it is in the
interest and welfare of the child that some other person may be appointed
as a Guardian, the Court may do so after considering the interest and
welfare of the child and his intelligent preference. To appoint any person
as a Guardian, it follows as precursor that the natural father who is the
Guardian of a minor in terms of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 shall not be disqualified till such time unless he is found to be
unfit to ensure the welfare of the child. The High Court of Madras in the
case of N. Palanisami vs. A. Palaniswamy 1998 (III) CTC 158, held:
“if there is any proof that the father has disentitled himself for
the custody, that is altogether a different matter. When the court
considers the welfare of the minor child, it does not mean the
opinion of the minor child. Normally when the minor child is
brought to court from the custody of grandfather or third party
especially when the minor child has been allowed to continue
for quite some time in such custody, as a young child, his
preference will be to continue the status quo but the court has to
consider the present and future of the minor child, not merely
the close proximity of the child with the person having
custody.”
32. Similarly, this court in the case of Lekh Raj Kukreja vs. Raymon
AIR 1989 Del 246 held: –
“Ordinarily custody should go to natural guardian. However,
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 14 of 18
there may be cases where there is a conflict in claim of father as
natural guardian of the male child and welfare of the child.
Such cases are far and few. It is only in extreme case of
illiteracy, poverty or delinquency of the father that his claim to
the custody of child can be disregarded. Otherwise the courts
would strain to reconcile the claim of the father based on his
right as natural guardian of the male child with the welfare of
the child the balance tilting in favor of the welfare of the child it
being of paramount and supreme importance.”
33. In this backdrop, the respective case of the parties may be
considered. Indisputably, respondent is the natural father of the child who
was born on 24.11.2008. The destiny had its own role to play and soon
after the marriage, the wife of respondent/mother of the child died an
unnatural death on 22.01.2010. While a criminal case under Section
498-A/34 IPC got registered on 22.01.2010 and the respondent along with
other co-accused i.e., his family members were put under arrest, the
circumstances which so prevailed, compelled the custody of the child who
was merely 1½ years old at that time, to be handed over to Tau and Tai of
the respondent. However, soon thereafter, the Guardianship Petition was
filed by the maternal grandparents who were naturally rattled by the
unfortunate and untimely demise of their daughter and sought the custody
of the minor. During the trial, the child was produced by Tau and Tai of
the respondent before the Court and the custody was handed over to the
appellants/maternal Grandparents. There could not have been any other
better alternative considering the child in those difficult times, the custody
of the child was given to his maternal grandparents/appellants rather than
being in the custody of the relatives of the father. The respondent was
admitted to bail on 26.09.2012 and immediately thereafter, he moved an
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 15 of 18
application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to seek
the custody of the child. Considering the prevailing acrimony amongst
the parties and also that the respondent was facing trial for the unnatural
death of his wife and also that the child was of a tender age and had been
away from the custody of the respondent, he was granted visitation rights
though apparently they were not meaningful or very fruitful in blossoming
love and affection between the child and the respondent/father. The
respondent was acquitted in the criminal case on 07.11.2012 but the
matter has not ended as the appeal against the said acquittal is pending in
this Court.
34. In this backdrop, one needs to consider if the respondent has
suffered any disqualification for losing the status of a Natural Guardian.
Aside from a criminal trial, there is no other disqualification which has
been brought on record. The other aspect that has been agitated is that he
has since got remarried and has a child from his second marriage,
therefore, he cannot be termed as a Natural Guardian. However, mere
second marriage of the father in the circumstances when he has lost his
first wife, cannot be held per-se a disqualification from his continuing to
be a Natural Guardian. No circumstance whatsoever has been brought on
record to disqualify the respondent from being a Natural Guardian. The
learned Principal Judge, Family Courts has thus rightly denied the
appellants/maternal grandparents to be appointed as the Guardian of the
minor.
35. The second aspect however is the custody of the minor child. It is
not denied that the child was as 1½ years old since when the appellants
are having his custody. Even though the respondent was released on bail
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 16 of 18
on 26.09.2012 and has been acquitted in the criminal case on 07.11.2012,
his endeavour to develop the affection with the child, has not yielded
much result. The child since infancy has been in custody of the
appellants. When we had interaction with the child in the Chamber who is
now about 15 years of age, he revealed that he felt alienated from the
father and was comfortable in the custody of the appellants and was being
well looked after by them.
36. It may be observed that undeniably there can be no substitute to the
affection of a natural parent. No doubt, the maternal grandparents may
have immense love and affection towards the child, but it cannot
substitute the love and affection of a natural parent. Even the disparity in
the financial status cannot be a relevant factor for denying the custody of a
child to the natural parent. However, in the matters of Guardianship and
Custody, we are confronted with the dilemma where the logic may say
that the child must be in the custody of his father, but the circumstances
and the intelligent preference of the child points otherwise. It may not be
in the interest and welfare of the child to uproot him from the family
where he is happily entrenched since the age of 1½ years.
37. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lahari Sakhamuri vs. Sobhan
Kodali in Civil Appeal No(s). 3135-316/2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
No(s). 15892-15893/2-18), held as under:
“Divorce and custody battles can become quagmire and it is
heart wrenching to see that the innocent child is the ultimate
sufferer who gets caught up in the legal and psychological
battle between the parents. The eventful agreement about
custody may often be a reflection of the parents’ interests,
rather than the child’s. The issue in a child custody dispute is
what will become of the child, but ordinarily the child is not a
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 17 of 18
true participant in the process. While the best interests
principle requires that the primary focus be on the interests of
the child, the child ordinarily does not define those interests
himself or does he have representation in the ordinary sense.”
38. The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts while giving a definite
finding of denying the claim of the appellants to be appointed as
Guardian, has unfortunately not considered the aspect of custody while
dismissing the petition of the appellants.
39. In the backdrop as discussed above, it is not considered in the
interest and welfare of the child to uproot him completely at this stage,
yet, as already discussed above, there can be no substitute to the parental
love and affection and thus, it is considered appropriate that initially
limited visitation rights be given to the respondent which may be revisited after one year on the application of the respondent/father of the
child if the circumstances so justifies.
40. We, therefore, direct that the respondent/father shall have a right to
meet the child on every first and third Saturday in the Children Room of
the Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi between 3 to 5 PM. In
case the child is unable to come for visitation right on any Saturday, the
meeting shall be held on the next working Saturday. The said
arrangement shall continue for a period of 3 months from today,
thereafter, timings shall be from 03:00 P.M. to 07:00 P.M. till further
orders. However, the parties shall be at liberty to adjust the timings
dependent upon the suitability of both the parties.
41. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal for appointment of
the appellants as Guardian but modify the impugned judgment in regard to
MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018 Page 18 of 18
the custody in the aforesaid terms.
42. The appeal along with pending applications is disposed of
accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 01, 2023
Categories: