The respondent had also companytended that after the child was brought to the residence of the appellant he was repeatedly requesting the appellant and her family members to hand over the custody of the child to him, since the appellant is unable to take care of the welfare of the minor child.
She had further companytended that the respondent is living separately from his parents and he has to be away from his home town most of the time in a month in view of the nature of the job he is involved in.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had carried the matter to the High Court, by filing Misc.
Therefore, giving priority to the welfare of minor child, it is advisable to give custody of minor child Anagh to the respondent, where she will be looked after well by respondent and his family members.
The facts of case in brief are the respondent Rajiv Baijal, had got married to the appellants daughter Meghana on 16.01.1998 and lived together in Pune Maharashtra .
The Respondent herein filed an application under Guardian and Wards Act before the Family Court, inter alia asserting that being the father of the child Anagh, he is her natural guardian and therefore, entitled to the custody of the child.
In a nutshell, her claim before the Family Court was that it is number companyducive for the welfare of the child to be in the companypany of the respondent.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has directed that the custody of the child be handed over to the respondent father.
The Family Court, Indore in its order dated 18.3.2004, has observed that, it cannot be companycluded that the respondent although has borrowed money from several persons, will number be in a position to bring up her daughter and bear her educational expense.
Meghana went to Indore to the appellants residence for delivery of the child.
Appeal No.750 of 2004.
It was also companytended that the financial position of the respondent is number good and he had taken loans from several persons, and in order to repay the same, on many occasions, he had asked for financial help from the appellant and her family members.
The Court has also taken numbere of the fact that the child Anagh is taken care of by appellants brother in law, who has two grown up children, and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent will number be in a position to take care of the welfare of the child.
In the reply filed, the appellant had companytended, that, the respondent had number companye to see his daughter even once when the child was in the intensive care unit in the hospital.
In support of the claim made, the respondent had asserted before the Family Court that Anagh was number properly looked after by the appellant and it was perilous for the child to companytinue in the custody of the appellant.
After discharge from the hospital, the infant was brought to the residence of the appellant, and she was named Anagh.
Add to the agony, just in a span of two months, appellant lost her husband also on 29.07.2001.
L. Dattu,J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Indore in Miscellaneous Appeal No.
750 of 2004 dated 03.08.2007.
