Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 156 (MP)

Dhaniram v. Mrs. Kusma Bai

2000-02-16

V.K.AGARWAL

body2000
ORDER V.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 1.10.1999, by ADJ, Dindori in Guardians and Wards Case No. 3/97, whereby the petition of the appellant for custody of minor Chameli, aged 5 years, (at the time of filing of the pennon) has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/petitioner filed an application under Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 r/w Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, praying for custody of his minor daughter Chameli begotten by respondent Smt. Kusma Bai. It appears that the respondent was kept as mistress by the appellant. However, both parties are now living separately. Minor Chameli-daughter of respondent is living with her. 3. The application was opposed by the respondent. It was stated by the appellant that his wife Shyama Bai is residing with him. They have four daughters. The appellant is not taking care of his children; There is an order under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. against the appellant granting maintenance in favour of minor Chameli Bai, and the appellant has filed this, petition in order to avoid payment of maintenance as above. It has also been stated in the reply by the respondent that in a criminal complaint the appellant and his wife Kusma Bai were convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned trial Judge after taking into account various considerations relating to custody of minor Chameli found that the ultimate welfare of the minor would be in remaining with her natural mother-the respondent, and that it would not be in her interest to give her in the custody of the appellant. 5. It is dear that the respondent-mother of minor Chameli, is not the married wife of the appellant. The appellant had kept her as a mistress. The appellant and the respondent are living separately since last many years and from the very beginning the minor daughter Chameli is residing with her mother. The appellant has his first wife alive and has four daughters from his first wife. In the circumstances, the paramount consideration of welfare and custody of a minor child appears in favour of permitting her to remain With her mother-the respondent, as is directed by the impugned order. The considerations that prevailed with the Trial Court in this regard and the view taken by it appear to be wholly justified. 6. In the circumstances, the paramount consideration of welfare and custody of a minor child appears in favour of permitting her to remain With her mother-the respondent, as is directed by the impugned order. The considerations that prevailed with the Trial Court in this regard and the view taken by it appear to be wholly justified. 6. Therefore, there appears to be no merit in this appeal. It does not deserve to be admitted. Accordingly, it is dismissed without notice to the respondent.