JUDGMENT 1. 1. Dhanna Lal (the petitioner) had married Smt. Neelu (the accused) and Pinki Parul (the child) ; a daughter wedlock was born. The petitioner and the accused could not pull on together and as such they started living separately. The child started living with the accused. A case was registered against the accused under Sections 307/324, IPC vide F.I.R. No. 98 of 1989, at Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur with the allegations that the accused had caused injuries on the person of the child. The accused was arrested and the child was got admitted in the hospital for treatment. After the child was discharged from the hospital. Under the orders of the learnd Judicial Magistrate No. 5, the child was sent to Balgrih Jaipur. The accused moved an application for custody of the child but that application was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application praying that the custody of the child, who is his daughter should he given to him. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 30th June, 1989, has dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The matter came up before me on 25th July, 1989, when I directed that notices be issued to the State of Rajasthan as well as the Superintendent of Balgrih, Jaipur to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and disposed of and further directed that the child should also be called from Balgrih, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur and be produced in Court. Consequently the child has been produced in Court and on my inquiry, the child has stated that she wants to live with the petitioner who is her father and does not want to live in the Bal Grah. 3. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner who is the father of the child is her natural guardian under law and is entitled to have her custody until and unless it is found that he is unfit to have the- custody of the child and some body who can look after the welfare of the child better is entitled to have the custody of the child. The learned Judicial Magistrate has observed that the petitioner had been living away from his wife i. e. the accused and from the child and moreover he had no lady at the house to look after the child and as such custody cannot be given to the petitioner. The petitioner has shown his willingness to keep the child and to bring her up and he being the father and natural guardian of the child there is no reason for me to hold that the welfare of the child will not be looked after by the petitioner specially when the mother of the child is accused of the of having got injuries on the person of the child and the child is not living with the mother. The interest of the child cannot be looked after better by the Bal Grah and in my view, the learned lower Court erred in rejecting the application of the applicant. 4. Consequently, I allow this petition set aside the impugned order dated 30th June, 1989 and direct that the custody of the child who is present in Court should be handed over to the petitioner in Court itself today. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. *******