Home > Child Custody > Father Gets Custody of his 2 children: Delhi Court

Father Gets Custody of his 2 children: Delhi Court

IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN:
GUARDIAN JUDGE (CENTRAL) DELHI.
G.P. NO. 37/2007

PRIYANKA
D/O SH. S.N. KAPOOR,
W/O GEORGE LAWRENCE
R/O, 34/492, TRILOK PURI,
DELHI.            …….PETITIONER

V E R S U S

GEORGE LAWRANCE
S/O, SH. RAMESH ROMEL
R/O, 126, IIIRD FLOOR,
MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
…….RESPONDENT
PETITION SEEKING PERMANENT CUSTODY OF MINORS
ROHAN & PRIYA
DATE OF INSTITUTION  :   13.02.2007
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON        :   30.09.2011
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :   29.10.2011
1 G.P. No.37/07JUDGMENT
1. The   present   petition  U/s     6   (A)   of   the   Hindu   Minority  &  Guardian ship & Wards Act  has been filed by the mother   of   minor   children  ‘Priya’   and ‘Rohan’  against   the respondent  (father)  for   seeking   permanent   custody   of
minor children. The children are now aged about 14 years & 9 years respectively.
2. As   per   the   case   of   the   petitioner,   she   got married to the  respondent  on 05/05/1996 and out  of  the said wedlock   female child  ‘Priya’ was  born  on  11/03/1997  and a male child ‘Rohan’  was born on 15/12/2002. After the
marriage that the respondent started behaving rudely with the petitioner and the respondent used to tell the petitioner
that his marriage was solemnized without his consent and respondent   is   not   happy   with   this   marriage   with the  petitioner. The behavior of respondent became intolerable as he started criticizing and taunting to the petitioner  that
she does not possess a  good looking personality and she is not   of   his   status   hence   he   will   never   accompany the petitioner  publicly or any  functions  and ceremonies. It is stated   that   the   respondent   has   never   performed   his
matrimonial   duties   towards   the   petitioner   and   he   never  looked after  and  cared about children since their birth. The respondent used to return at late night hours and just after
return he used to  quarrel and abuse the petitioner & even treated the  children with cruelty. For the respondent it was
a   routine   matter   to   beat   children.   In   August   2005,   the  respondent  quarreled with petitioner and threatened to kill the petitioner and her children. The respondent threw the
petitioner form his house and since then the petitioner has been residing separately.
3.It is stated that petitioner requested and prayed to the respondent  to  handover  the custody of her minor children
but the respondent flatly refused. The welfare and future of minors   is   not   safe   with   the   respondent   who   has   always neglected   them  as   he   has   no   love   and   affection   for   the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent is  working as a Security Guard and is doing duty 24 hours and there is none
in the family of the respondent to look after minor children. On   the   other   hand   the   petitioner’s   family   includes her mother,  sister and other  family  members who can look after and take care of the children and the children will be quite
happy   and   satisfied   with   the   petitioner.   Hence,   the petitioner   is   fully   entitled   for   the   custody   of   her   minor  children  for their  welfare,  bright  future and good health.
4. In   the   written   statement,  the   respondent   has submitted that  he is  poor person and having   his parents and two children, moreover   he is sole  bread earner in his house.  Soon  after  his  marriage,  he  came to know that the
petitioner has been suffering from the fits and tuberculosis
disease   and   is   under   treatment.   It   is     submitted   that
petitioner has three names as Preety, Priyanka and Rano.
The married   life of  the husband and wife was going very
happy but after the birth of the female child the petitioner
decided to give her baby to her younger sister because her
younger sister had no issue. The respondent and his family
did not agree to give the child to her younger sister because
it   was   the   first   and   only   one   baby   in   the   family.   It   is
submitted   that   the   petitioner   is   suffering   from   inherent
Tuberculosis  disease   and  the   Doctors  have  suggested  the
respondent’s   family   to   save   her   child   with   it’s   infection,
because  it  is  an infectious  disease  and the  child shall  be
infected with her mother’s diseases. It is further stated that
since 29/02/2000 the petitioner is not living regularly with
her husband the respondent. After some time a male child
was born on 15/12/2002.
5 G.P. No.37/075. The   respondent   has   submitted   that   a   false
complaint   was   filed   by   the   petitioner   before   the   Crime
Woman cell on 23/09/2005 but the same was withdrawn by
the petitioner. Meanwhile, during the period between the
year   2000   to   2005,   the   petitioner   had   been   coming   at
respondent’s house for some time and when he was to leave
the respondent’s house then she was been writing a letter.
It is also submitted that  she never wanted to reside in her
matrimonial home regularly, however the respondent  and
his   poor   family   have   always   been   associating   her   and
requesting her  to stay in her  matrimonial home and take
care her children and his family. It is submitted that both
the   children   are   very   happily   residing   with   respondent’s
family since their birth and they have a  bright future.
6. Vide   order   dated  19/05/2008,  following  issues
were framed:­
6 G.P. No.37/071.  Whether  it   would   be   in the
interest    &    welfare    of   the
children namely baby   ‘Priya’
and    master ‘Rohan’           aged
around  10  years  and 4 years
respectively     in     case    their
permanent custody is granted
to   their     petitioner   mother
Priyanka as prayed. (OPP).
2.  Relief.
7.   The Court had a Chamber interaction with the
both   the     children    ‘Priya’  and  ‘Rohan’   on   27/08/2011.
Master  ‘Rohan’  disclosed his name as  ‘Maxwell’    and he is
studying in class 2
nd
at  Nagar Nigam Prathmik  Vidayalya,
Malviya   Nagar   and   informed   that   his   father   and   grand
mother takes good care of him. The minor submits that he is
happy in the custody of the respondent and he does not like
his mother. However, the minor was not  able to give any
specific reason why he does not like his mother except that
the petitioner suffers from fits.
7 G.P. No.37/078. In her interview ‘Priya’  has informed that she is
studying in Class 5
th
at Nigam Girls Prathmik School and she
also attends her tuition classes. The  minor informs that her
mother had left the matrimonial home and she did not take
care of the children as such the she does not wish to reside
with  her   mother.    The   minor   has   also  informed   that   the
respondent is a Security Guard and   his duty hours are at
night and he is available at home to take their care in the
day time.   It is told that in the absence of their father, the
children are looked after by their grand mother, who is also
working in a hospital. ‘Priya’  has also desired to reside with
her father, respondent.
9. I  have heard counsel   for parties and perused
the entire record.  The issue wise findings are as follows :­
8 G.P. No.37/07ISSUE NO.1: In   order   to   prove   her   case   petitioner
examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way
of   an   affidavit  Ex.   P1.     The   petitioner   during   her   cross
examination deposed that she is residing at 34/492, Trilok
Puri,   Delhi­91   and   in   the   said   house   seven   people   are
residing. It is deposed that she is doing the stitching work at
her home and her average monthly income is Rs. 2000/­. It
is admitted that  she  was  suffering  from  TB even prior  to
marriage.   The   petitioner   admitted   that   she   was   earlier
suffering   from   fits   and   she   even   got   treated   for   a
neurological problem. Petitioner   testified that  she  cannot
tell in which class her children are studying and she never
went  to meet  her  children at  their  School. The petitioner
also admitted that she has availed visitation rights to meet
her children only 5­6 times.
9 G.P. No.37/0710. In defense respondent appeared in witness box
as  RW1  and tendered his evidence by way of  affidavit  Ex.
RW1/A.    The respondent testified that he is christian and at
the   time   of   marriage   the   petitioner   also   converted   to
Christianity. His marriage was solemnized as per Christian
rites   and   ceremonies   and   proved   the   photographs   of   his
marriage as  Ex R­1. Respondent testified that petitioner is
suffering from epilepsy & tuberculosis her medical record is
Ex R­2 & R­4.   The respondent disclosed his income at Rs.
6,000/­ per month.
11. It is the objective of the  Guardian and Wards
Act that every trial is only to ensure paramount welfare and
interest   of   the   children.  The   guardianship   Court   is   not   a
platform where litigation parties can be permitted to vent
their grudges and her feelings against each other and that
10 G.P. No.37/07matters  and  relevant  is as to what would be done to secure
the   welfare   and   interest   of   the   minors   since   in   all   the
guardianship cases it is the minors only who are the victims
even   through   they   have   no   role   to   play   in   the   failed
marriages of their parents.
12. While lying the guidelines for the court dealing
with   the   guardianship   matter   and   elucidation   the
importance of the role played by Guardian Judge , Hon’ble
Supreme Court & Hon’ble High Courts have held that:
Again,   in  Thrity   Hoshie   Dolikuka   v.
Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, (1982) 2
SCC   544,   the   Hon’ble   Apex   Court
reiterated that the only consideration of
the   Court   in   deciding   the   question   of
custody of  minor should be the welfare
and interest  of  the minor. And it  is the
special   duty   and   responsibility   of   the
Court.   Mature   thinking   is   indeed
necessary   in   such   situation   to   decide
what   will   enure   to   the   benefit   and
11 G.P. No.37/07welfare of the child.
Merely because there is no defect  in his
personal care and his attachment for his
children   ­   which   every   normal   parent
has,   he   would   not   be   granted   custody.
Simply   because   the   father   loves   his
children   and   is   not   shown   to   be
otherwise   undesirable   does   not
necessarily   lead   to   the   conclusion   that
the   welfare   of   the   children   would   be
better   promoted   by   granting   their
custody   to   him.   Children   are   not   mere
chattels   nor   are   they   toys   for   their
parents.   Absolute   right   of   parents   over
the   destinies   and   the   lives   of   their
children, in the modern changed social
conditions   must   yield   to   the
considerations of their welfare as human
beings   so   that   they   may   grow  up   in   a
normal   balanced   manner   to   be   useful
members of the society and the guardian
court   in   case   of   a   dispute   between   the
mother   and   the   father,   is   expected   to
strike a just and proper balance between
the requirements of welfare of the minor
children and the rights of their respective
parents over them.
The  Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2009
SC 557  has held that  when the court is
confronted   with   conflicting   demands
made by the parents, each time it has to
justify the demands. The Court  has  not
only   to   look   at   the   issue   on   legalistic
basis, in such matters human angles are
12 G.P. No.37/07relevant   for   deciding   those   issues.   The
court then does not give emphasis on
what the parties say, it has to exercise a
jurisdiction   which   is   aimed   at   the
welfare of the minor. As observed recently
in Mousami Moitra Ganguli’s case 2008
AIR   SCW   4043,   the   Court   has   to   due
weight­age   to   the   child’s   ordinary
contentment,   health,   education,
intellectual   development   and   favorable
surroundings   but   over   and   above
physical comforts, the moral and ethical
values   have   also   to   be   noted.   They   are
equal   if   not   more   important   than   the
others.
13.   In present case, ‘Priya & Rohan’ minors aged  14
years  & 9  years  have   made  a  preference  that  they  would
prefer to be with their father with whom they are residing
happily. It has also come in evidence that;
(a)  The children are residing in company
of     their     father since their birth and have
adjusted well in his company.
(b) The financial position of the petitioner is
not stable. Her meager income of Rs2000/­ is
13 G.P. No.37/07insufficient to meet the day today expenses &
educational expenses of children.
(c) The children are getting good   education
and  the  atmosphere  in  the   residence   of  the
respondent is congenial for the welfare of the
child as in the absence of the respondent, the
grand mother of the children is taking good
care of children.
(d)  The minors in their interaction with the
Court have wished to reside in the company
of the respondent.
(e) There is nothing on record to suggest that
the petitioner is more capable of handling the
children than the respondent and the welfare
of the children is not with the respondent.
14. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, I
am of the considered opinion that the paramount welfare of
the child is with the respondent and the custody of the child
‘Priya   & Rohan’   shall   remain   with   him.   However,   the
petitioner   being   the   mother   of   children   should   have
14 G.P. No.37/07sufficient access to them. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
petitioner   shall   have   the   visitation   rights   to   meet   the
children on each Sunday from 10:00 AM till 01:00 PM. The
petitioner may visit the residence of the respondent for the
meeting or otherwise may inform the respondent any other
venue of meeting within two kilometres distance from the
house of the respondent.
15.  RELIEF: In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid
discussions,   the   petition   of   the   petitioner   filed   seeking
custody of children  ‘Priya & Rohan’  stands dismissed. The
petitioner  is granted the visitation rights in respect  of  the
minor children as detailed in the above mentioned para. No
orders as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON : 29
th
October, 2011               (GAUTAM   MANAN)
ASCJ/JSCC/GJ(CENTRAL)
DELHI.
15 G.P. No.37/07          16 G.P. No.37/07

Categories: Child Custody Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: