Bela M. Trivedi, J.@mdashBoth the appeals arising out of the same order dated 06/05/2008 passed by the District Judge, Sikar(hereinafter referred to as ''the Court below'') in Case No. 1/2006 & Case No. 87/2005 are being decided by way of this common judgment finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties. The Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2984 of 2008 arises out of the said order dated 06/05/2008 passed by the court below, dismissing the case No. 1/2006 filed by the appellant-Anuj Sharma u/s 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1890''), whereas the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3529 of 2008 arises out of the said order passed by the Court below, allowing the case No. 87 of 2005 filed by the respondent-Ram Gopal seeking his appointment as Guardian of the minor Vaibhav, u/s 7 of the Act of 1890.
2. The short facts, giving rise to the present appeals, are that the appellant-Anuj Sharma happens to be the father, and the respondent-Ram Gopal happens to be the maternal grand-father of the minor Master Vaibhav Sharma. The appellant-Anuj Sharma had married late Smt. Kavita Sharma, who happened to be the daughter of the respondent-Ram Gopal, and out of the said wedlock the minor Vaibhav Sharma was born on 02/08/2002. The said Smt. Kavita Sharma died on 30/10/2005 on account of burn injuries received by her on 26/10/2005. As per the case of the appellant, she had committed suicide, however, as per the case of the respondent, she was burnt by the family members of the appellant. According to the appellant-Anuj Sharma, on 31/10/2005, when the appellant and his family members were busy with the after death ceremony of late Smt. Kavita Sharma, the respondent-Ram Gopal along with his family members kidnapped the child-Vaibhav. The appellant therefore had lodged an FIR against the respondent, and other family members alleging abduction of child and dacoity in the house. The respondent-Ram Gopal therefore on 14/12/2005 filed the application u/s 7 of the Act of 1890 for his appointment as guardian of the minor Vaibhav, and on 07/01/2006 the appellant-Anuj Sharma filed the application u/s 25 of the said Act of 1890 seeking direction to return the custody of the said child Vaibhav to him. Both the applications having been decided by the Court below against the appellant-Anuj Sharma vide the impugned order, the appeals have been filed by the appellant-Anuj Sharma.
3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Court below has mis-appreciated the evidence on record and held the appellant not fit for being appointed as the guardian of minor Vaibhav, though there was no pleading nor any evidence led by the respondent in that regard. Placing heavy reliance on the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act of 1890, he submitted that the Court below could not have appointed the respondent as the guardian, who happened to be the maternal grand-father of the minor, when the appellant, the father of the minor is living and has not been declared unfit to be the guardian of the minor by any authority or under any law. According to Mr. Ranjan, the respondent had forcibly taken away the child from the lawful custody of the appellant after the death of late Smt. Kavita on 31/10/2005 to Village Palawas, District Sikar, and thereafter the minor was sent to the tribal area of Nagaland called Dimapur where respondent''s another son was staying. He further submitted that the maternal uncle of the minor could not have any right much less legal right for the custody of the minor, when the appellant, the natural guardian is alive and able to take best of the care of the minor. He also submitted that the appellant owns immovable properties and has also car, which show that he is very well set in life. The appellant is also ready to produce the documents in that regard. Referring the deposition of the respondent, he submitted that admittedly the relationships between the appellant and his wife were good and that the appellant has not even been charge sheeted for the alleged dowry death of his wife Kavita, and the case against the mother of the appellant is sub-judice. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that minor''s welfare would not be taken care of by the appellant. Mr. Ranjan has relied upon various judgments of the Apex court and other High Courts to buttress his submissions.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Dinesh Yadav for the respondent relying upon the decisions of Apex Court, more particularly in case of
5. Before adverting of the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant provisions contained in both the Acts i.e. the Act of 1890 and the Act of 1956. The respondent-Ram Gopal had filed the application before the Court below u/s 7 of the Act of 1890 for his appointment as guardian of the minor child. The relevant part of the said Section reads as under:-
7. Power of the Court to make order as to guardianship.--(1) Where the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that an order should be made--
(a) appointing a guardian of his person or property or both, or
(b) declaring a person to be such a guardian the Court may make an order accordingly.
(2) ......
(3) .......
6. In this regard, it is also necessary to reproduce the relevant part of Section 19 of the said Act of 1890, which deals with the provision as to under what circumstances the guardian should not be appointed by the Court:-
19. Guardian not to be appointed by the Court in certain cases.--Nothing in this Chapter shall authorize the Court to appoint or declare a guardian of the property of a minor whose property is under the superintendence of a Court of Wards or to appoint or declare a guardian of the person--
(a) .......
(b) of a minor whose father is living and is not in the opinion of the Court, unfit to be guardian of the person of the minor; or
(c) ........
7. The appellant had filed the application u/s 25 of the Act of 1980 seeking return of custody of minor Vaibhav to him. Section 25 of the said Act of 1890 relates to the title of guardian to custody of ward, the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-
25. Title of guardian to custody of ward.--(1) If a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian of his person, the Court, if it is of opinion that it will be for the welfare of the ward to return to the custody of his guardian, may make an order for his return and for the purpose of enforcing the order may cause the ward to be arrested and to be delivered into the custody of the guardian.
(2) .......
(3) .......
8. Since the reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the provisions contained in the Act of 1956, more particularly on Section 5 thereof, the relevant part of Section 5 is reproduced as under:-
5. Over-riding effect of Act.--Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act.--
(a) .......
(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.
9. It is also pertinent to note that as per Section 6 of the Act of 1956, the natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor''s person as well as in respect of the minor''s property, excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property, is in the case of a boy or unmarried girl, the father and after him, the mother, provided that the natural guardian of the minor shall not be entitled to act as such, if he had ceased to be a Hindu or if he had completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit or an ascetic.
10. In view of the above statutory provisions, it clearly transpires that as per Section 19 of the Act of 1890, the Court is not authorized to appoint or declare a guardian of the property of the minor or to appoint or declare a guardian of the person of the minor, whose father is living and is not in the opinion of the Court unfit to be the guardian of the person of the minor. In other words, so long as the father of the minor is alive and is not found unfit to be the guardian of the person of the minor, the Court cannot appoint any other person as the guardian of the person of such minor. In the instant case, the respondent, who happened to be the maternal grand-father of the minor, had applied u/s 7 of the said Act of 1890 for being appointed as the guardian of the person of minor Vaibhav, though the appellant, who happened to be the father of the minor, was alive. It is pertinent to note that whether the appellant-father was unfit for being appointed as the guardian of the minor as contemplated u/s 19, was the question to be decided by the Court below on the basis of the evidence on record, however, if the pleadings and the evidence led by the respondent are considered, there was nothing on record to suggest that the appellant had become unfit either mentally, physically or otherwise for being the guardian of the person of the minor Vaibhav.
11. Though much reliance was placed on the provision contained in Section 5 of the Act of 1956 by the learned counsel Mr. Yadav to submit that the Act of 1956 had an effect overriding the provisions of the Act of 1890, Mr. Yadav had failed to point out any inconsistency between the provisions contained in both the Acts. As such, there is no provision in the Act of 1956, authorizing the Court to appoint the guardian of a minor, whereas Section 19 of the Act of 1890 specifically prohibits the Court from appointing or declaring the guardian of the person of the minor, whose father is living and who is not unfit to be the guardian of the person of the minor. Further, there is also nothing in the Act of 1890 as to under what circumstances the father would be unfit to be the guardian, and therefore if Section 6 of the Act of 1956 is taken into consideration, it states that the natural guardian of Hindu minor in respect of minor''s person as well as his property would be his father and after him his mother, provided such natural guardian shall not be entitled to act as the guardian if he had ceased to be a Hindu or had completely or finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit or an ascetic. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act of 1890 and the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act of 1956 are complementary and not inconsistent with each other. In the opinion of the Court, from the harmonious reading of both the provisions under both the Acts, it clearly emerges that the father would become unfit to be the guardian of the person of the minor, if he had ceased to be a Hindu or had completely renounced the world, and not otherwise. Here the Court would like to add that the mental or physical disablement of the father as a natural guardian may be a criterion for not handing over the custody of the minor child, but such a disablement would not disentitle the father or the mother as the case may be to be the guardian of the minor child.
12. As per the settled legal position also, the appointment of a person as the guardian of the person of the minor is different from handing over the custody of the minor to a particular person. As held by the Apex Court in case of Athar Hussain vs. Syed Siraj Ahmed & Ors(supra), the matter of guardianship lies in favour of the appellant u/s 19 of the Act of 1890, unless the father is not fit to be a guardian, and the Court has no jurisdiction to appoint another guardian. It has also been observed therein that the question of custody is different from the question of guardianship. In the instant case, the appellant-father being alive and he having neither ceased to be a Hindu nor completely renounced the world, nor there being any evidence to show that he had become mentally or physically unfit to be a guardian of the minor Vaibhav, the Court below had committed an error of law in holding that the appellant was unfit to be the guardian of the minor Vaibhav, while allowing the application of the respondent u/s 7 of the Act of 1890.
13. So far as the application u/s 25 of the said Act of 1890 seeking return of the custody of the minor Vaibhav is concerned, there cannot be any disagreement with the proposition that for handing over the custody, the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the minor child. In this regard, if the evidence of the appellant as well as of the respondent led before the Court below is looked into, admittedly, it transpires that the death of late Smt. Kavita, wife of the appellant, had taken place on 30/10/2005 and till then, the custody of minor was with the appellant, who was staying at Chomu. Admittedly, the minor Vaibhav was studying in the English Medium School at Chomu at that time. However, on 31/10/2005, when the appellant and his family members were busy with the after death ceremony of late Smt. Kavita, the respondent had forcibly taken away the minor and brought him to Village Palawas, District Sikar. The respondent had admitted in his evidence that there was no electricity for 24 hours in the Village Palawas and that Chomu had better educational facilities than Palawas. He had also admitted that the minor Vaibhav thereafter was sent to Nagaland at the place of his son i.e. maternal uncle of Vaibhav and was studying in the school at Dhimapur. As against that, the appellant had stated in his evidence that the respondent had sent the minor Vaibhav to his son to far eastern State, where there was no proper facility for education, and that if the custody of Vaibhav was given to him, he would get his admission in the best of the school at Jaipur. He had also stated that he was financially sound and was doing the business of Namkeen and confectionery, and was also doing the work of shares and brokerage. Though it is true that the appellant had not produced documentary evidence to show that he was the income tax payer, in the opinion of the Court such non-production of the documents would not disentitle him to the custody of minor child Vaibhav as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. During the course of arguments Mr. Ranjan for the appellant had also submitted that the appellant has become financially very sound and has also purchased the properties and the car after the passing of the impugned order and that he would give his child best of the education. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that although the appellant appears to be financially well-off, weak financial condition of the father could not be a ground to deny him the custody of his child. What is important and paramount is the welfare of the child, which would include material welfare; both in the sense of adequacy of resources to provide a pleasant home and a comfortable standard of living, and in the sense of an adequacy of care to ensure that good health and due personal care are maintained. The welfare of the child should not be measured by money or by physical comforts alone. While considering the welfare of the child, the ties of the affection of the father, who is the natural guardian could not be disregarded. In the instant case, as transpiring from the record, the respondent-maternal grand-father was staying at Village Palawas, District Sikar and the child Vaibhav was sent away by him to the far north-eastern areas of Nagaland where the maternal uncle of the child was staying and was admitted in a school at Dimapur, which is a Tribal area. Apart from the location or the area, the welfare and interest of the minor child would definitely be better taken care of by his father rather than by his maternal uncle. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent himself is staying with his son at Nagaland, and on the contrary as per his own evidence, he was staying at Palawas, District Sikar, which proved that he was not having the custody or control over the minor child.
14. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that when the Court had called the minor child Vaibhav in the Court, the child had not only refused to recognize his own father, but had told the Court that his father was not the appellant, but was his maternal uncle. Though the Court repeatedly asked the child about the name of his father, he repeatedly named his maternal uncle as his father. It appears that the maternal uncle had poisoned the mind of the minor to the extent that the child had developed ill-feelings against his father and had learnt speaking lies. The child appeared to be thoroughly tutored by the respondent and his son. The Court can appreciate the anguish of the respondent for losing his daughter, but even according to him, the relationships between the appellant and his wife i.e. the daughter of the respondent were very cordial, and that no charge sheet has been filed by the police against the appellant in respect of the death of his wife. The proceedings appear to be pending against the mother of the appellant, however, the matter being sub-judice, it would not be proper for the Court to draw inferences for or against any family member of the appellant. Further, even assuming for a movement that Smt. Kavita committed suicide because of the harassment of the family members of the appellant, then also it could not be said that the appellant would not keep his own child happy or would not act in the best of his interest. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant has already remarried and therefore the custody should not be given to the appellant. Though, it has been denied by the appellant about the said allegation, such a submission can not be accepted. The interest and care of the minor would definitely be better taken care of by the appellant and the step mother than the maternal uncle and aunt who are staying at Nagaland. It is also pertinent to note that after the death of Smt. Kavita and the forcible abduction of his son by the respondent, the appellant had immediately filed the criminal complaint against the respondent and also the present proceedings for getting back the custody of his child. Thus there was no delay on his part in getting back the custody of his child in accordance with law. It was only due to pendency of the proceedings in the Court which took some time, and the child Vaibhav remained in the custody of the respondent and his son, who had influenced the mind of the minor against his father. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the interest and welfare of the minor Vaibhav would be best served if the custody of the minor Vaibhav is handed over to his father i.e. appellant.
15. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the Court below had mis-appreciated the evidence on record and had committed an error in not returning the custody of the child Vaibhav to the appellant u/s 25 of the Act of 1890.
16. As submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Yadav for the respondent, the child Vaibhav at present is studying in standard VI in the school at Dimapur, but would be studying in the Royal Global School at Gauhati from the next academic year starting in April 2014, whereas the learned senior counsel Mr. Ranjan has submitted that the appellant has already secured the admission in the school at Chomu, District Jaipur. Although the Court has held that the appellant would be entitled to get the custody of minor Vaibhav, it would not be desirable to disturb his studies at the fag end of the year, and therefore, it is directed that the respondent shall hand over the custody of minor Vaibhav to the appellant after his final exams of the current year are over, and latest by 2nd April, 2014.
17. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. It is held that the appellant is the guardian of minor Vaibhav and that the respondent-Ram Gopal could not be appointed as his guardian. It is further directed that the respondent Ram Gopal shall hand over the custody of the minor child Vaibhav to the appellant Anuj Sharma, as soon as the final examinations of the child Vaibhav for the Standard VI are over and latest by 2nd April, 2014. It is however clarified that respondent after handing over the said custody shall be at liberty to visit his grand son Vaibhav as and when he desires to do so, after intimating the appellant as far as possible, and the appellant shall also permit him to meet the minor Vaibhav at his place.
18. It is further clarified that for the purpose of enforcing this order, the appellant shall be at liberty to move this Court seeking arrest of the minor Vaibhav, as contemplated in Section 25 of the Act of 1890. However, it is hoped that the respondent shall not create such a situation. With these directions, both the appeals are allowed.
