Whilst the minor girl was living with the appellants, she used to companye to spend some time with the respondent and his wife but for some time past, the appellants did number allow Chitra to visit her parents.
15 of 1949 hereafter called the Ordinance .
He came to the companyclusion that it would be in the interests of the minor to deliver her to the custody of the respondent and his wife.
1 and the wife of the respondent and that was the real cause of the present application.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated February 1964 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal No.
They pleaded that as a result of the ugly incident that took place between the two ladies, the minor was frightened and appeared to be disinclined to visit her parents any longer.
Accordingly, the minor was entrusted to the appellants a few hours after her birth and in fact, she was given away by the respondent and his wife to the appellants to be looked after as if she was their adopted child.
ion this view, the learned single Judge set aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge by which appellant No.
He held that under s. 6 a of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1958, the respondent was entitled to be the guardian of his daughter in the absence of any allegation or proof that he was in any way unsuitable to be such a guardian.
During all these years, the appellants have looked after the minor as their own child, have taken fond care of her, and have looked after her education.
Having companye to the companyclusion that it would be inconsistent with the interests of the child to allow the application made by the respondent, the learned Judge ordered that appellant No.
The claim thus made by the respondent was disputed by the appellants.
To this application, the respondent had impleaded the two appellants, Gulab Bai and her, husband Onkar Lal.
Against this order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court.
On these pleadings, the parties led evidence to support their respective companytentions.
He felt satisfied that in case the child was removed from the homely atmosphere which she enjoyed in the house of the appellants, that would definitely be detrimental to her welfare and would also affect her health, because she had companye to look upon the appellants as her parents.
The respondent is a Kumhar by caste, whereas the appellants are fat.
The respondents case was that the minor Chitra who was about 11 years of age at the date of the application, had been living with the appellants for the last 4 or 5 years with his companysent.
According to the appellants, recently an unfortunate incident had taken place between appellant No.
That is how the appellants applied for and obtained special leave from this Court, and it is with the said leave that this appeal has companye before us.
He was companyvinced that the child definitely preferred to stay with the appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
and he held that since the minor was then about 12 years of age, it was in her interest that she went back to be looked after by her own parents.
The order passed by the learned Judge further provided that if the appellants did number deliver the minor Chitra to her parents on the expiry of three months, the respondent shall apply for execution of the order and that it would be executed as a decree under S. 25 2 of the Act by issue of a warrant under s. 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
and the respondent and his wife are neighbours, and the appellants denied the allegation made by the respondent that they ever obstructed the minor from visiting her parents.
2 was appointed the guardian of the minor and directed him to deliver the minor to the custody of the respondent.
The appellants then moved the High Court for certificate to prefer an appeal to this Court, but the said application was dismissed.
8 of 1890 hereinafter called the Act , for the custody of his daughter Mt. Chitra.
The learned single Judge also took into account the fact that the appellants and the respondent belonged to different castes.
Court number to remove the child from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and number to marry her without the permission of the Court.
The learned trial Judge held that the child had been entrusted to the appellants soon after she was born, and that she was looked after by the appellants as if she was their daughter.
The learned trial Judge examined the child in order to ascertain her own wishes, because he thought that she had attained the age of discretion and companyld express her wishes intelligently.
P. Varma, for the appellants.
The appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendradkar, C.J. This appeal by special leave arises from an application made by the respondent Puniya in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Jhalawar under S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 No.
They alleged that the respondent and his wife had lost some children in their infancy, and so, they decided to leave the minor in the custody of the appellants, in the hope that their custody would save the child.
Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondent.
729 of 1964.
2 of 1963.
That is why the respondent thought it necessary to move the Court for an order under s. 25 of the Act.
Against this decision, the appellants preferred an appeal under clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 No.
