Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1534 (RAJ)

Dr. Jasa Ram v. Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur

2010-08-25

DINESH MAHESHWARI, JAGDISH BHALLA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.5531/2010. The writ petition aforesaid was filed by the petitioner-appellant in challenge to the order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the Family Court, Jodhpur on the application moved by him under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 2. By the said order dated 25.05.2010, the Family Court, while declining the prayer of the appellant for custody of the child, permitted him to meet the child after certain intervals and for a limited time. The learned Single Judge found no case for interference keeping in view the factors of welfare of the child, about 5= years in age, which were definitely considered by the Family Court while passing the aforesaid order dated 25.05.2010. The learned Single Judge said,- "On examination of the order impugned it reveals that family court considered various factors including the fact that the ward is residing exclusively with his mother from last about three years, i.e. from the age of 2= years. True it is, the court also acquainted itself with wish of the ward but essentially it was only welfare of the child that resulted into the order impugned. The order impugned does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India." 3. In our considered opinion, neither this appeal can be said to be maintainable nor the impugned orders call for any interference. 4. The order as passed by the Family Court appears to be just and proper, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and particularly looking to the fact that the child is said to be 5 = years of age. Moreover, when the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and looking to the nature of litigation, we do not consider this intra-court appeal to be maintainable. 5. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. 6. However, we leave the petitioner-appellant to take recourse to the appropriate remedy in accordance with law so far the proposition of seeking custody of the child is concerned.Appeal dismissed. *******