R.D. Dhanuka, J.@mdashAdmit.
2. Respondent Waives service. Returnable forthwith and by consent of parties heard finally.
3. This appeal is directed against the order and Judgment dated 24/06/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Malegaon allowing the application filed by the respondent who is real maternal aunt of the minor child inter alia praying for her appointment as guardian of the minor Kumari Arya Unawane u/s 10 of Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under.
4. The appellants are the natural grand parents of the minor Kumari Aarya Unawane (herein after referred as ''the said minor''). Son of the appellants was married to Pallavi on 02/12/2001 at Aurangabad. After her marriage Pallavi started residing at her matrimonial home at Bhandup with the appellants and her husband. Thereafter she resided with her husband at Dombivili. Out of the said wedlock, the said minor Kum. Arya was born on 10/09/2002. On 20/04/2005, son of the appellant who was husband of the Pallavi died due to heart attack.
5. Sometime in the year 2008, Mrs. Pallavi the daughter in law of the appellants filed Special Civil Suit No. 236 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D) Nashik, inter alia praying for partition and separate possession against the appellants. She also filed petition u/s 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in the Family Court at Aurangabad against the appellants. The said Mrs. Pallavi was practicing advocate. On 20/09/2009, the said Mrs. Pallavi met with an accident and died when she was proceeding from Aurangabad to Malegaon for Court work.
6. It is the case of the respondent that since the death of said Mrs. Pallavi i.e. the mother of the said minor, the said minor has been residing with the respondent and her husband. The respondent got the said minor admitted in Kishor Suryanshi International School, Panchavati, Nashik in which school her children are taking education. It is the case of the respondent that she has been visiting twice or thrice in a week with her husband from Malegaon to Nashik and taking care of the said minor Arya.
7. It is the case of the appellants that after the demise of their daughter in law Mrs. Pallavi, the appellants issued three notices i.e. on 02/10/2009, 16/12/2009 and 24/03/2010 requesting the father of Pallavi for custody of the said minor but the custody was not handed over to the appellants by the father of Mrs. Pallavi. Sometime in the year 2010, the respondent filed an application for her appointment as guardian u/s 10 of Guardianship and Wards Act of the said minor in the court of District Judge at Malegaon, Nashik. The said application was resisted by the appellants.
8. The District Judge1 Malegaon, Nashik framed two issues which are extracted as under :
(1) Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present application ?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to be appointed as guardian minor Arya ?
9. The respondent examined herself as a witness before the learned trial Judge. Appellant No. 1 examined himself as witness. Both the witnesses were cross examined by each other. The learned District Judge1 Malegaon by order dated 24/06/2013 allowed the application filed u/s 10 of Guardianship and Wards Act by the respondent and thereby appointed the respondent as guardian of the said minor in the interest and for the welfare of the minor.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are natural grand parents of the said minor and cannot be deprived of custody of the said minor. It is submitted that though three letters were addressed by the appellants to the father of Mrs. Pallavi after her demise for custody of the said minor, custody was not handed over to the appellants. Learned counsel submits that the appellants have only one son who did not have any child at the time when this proceedings were pending and the application of the respondent was opposed by the appellants. It was the case of the appellants that the son of the appellants who was working as Class-I officer in State Government having good source of income and had no child at the relevant time, could take care of the minor along with the appellants. It is submitted that the son of the appellants had also applied for intervention in the proceedings filed by the respondent however, the said application came to be rejected by the learned trial Judge. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Judge did not consider the letters addressed by the appellants seeking custody of the minor in the impugned Judgment. Learned counsel submits that though in the oral evidence lead by appellant No. 1, it is deposed that appellant No. 1 used to meet the minor at Aurangabad after the demise of their son, learned trial Judge has not considered this aspect and has rendered a finding contrary to the evidence led by appellant No. 1.
11. Learned counsel invited my attention to paragraph 3 of examination in chief of appellant No. 1 and would submit that though appellant No. 1 had deposed before the learned trial Judge that the son of appellants was equipped to take responsibility and see the welfare of minor child and that there was no cross examination of this deposition of appellant No. 1, learned trial Judge did not consider this crucial aspect and has granted custody of the minor to the respondent. Though in the cross examination of respondent, she had admitted that she was not aware whether the appellants had met the minor at Aurangabad when the minor was staying with her mother, the learned trial Judge has rendered a finding that the appellants had never showed any affection for the said minor. Learned counsel submits that the minor is not admittedly staying with the respondent but has been staying in residential school at Panchavati, Nashik whereas the respondent has been residing at Malegaon.
12. Learned counsel appearing for appellant also raised an issue of territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge1, Malegaon to entertain the application filed by the respondent on the ground that the learned District Judge1, Malegaon did not have territorial jurisdiction in view of the fact that the child was never staying permanently at Nashik but was brought for few days to Nashik. Learned counsel appearing for respondent on this issue submits that the learned trial Judge has rightly decided this issue and negatived the contention raised by the appellants.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submits that the appellants had never taken care of the minor at any point of time. The appellants did not file any proceedings for custody or for appointment as guardian of the minor since the date of inception i.e. the day the said minor had been staying with her mother or even after demise of her mother. It is submitted that is not in dispute that the son of the appellants has now one daughter from his wedlock with his wife. It is submitted that in so far as three letters referred to and relied upon by the appellants which were alleged to have been addressed to the father of Pallavi is concerned, the letters were not proved before the learned trial Judge and were not marked as exhibits. It is submitted that during the life time of Pallavi, she had already filed proceedings against the appellants for partition of the properties and for maintenance which proceedings were opposed by the appellants. Learned counsel invited my attention to relevant part of the evidence recorded by both the parties before the learned trial Judge. My attention is also invited to the proceedings filed by the said Mrs. Pallavi against the appellants before Civil Judge (S.C.) Nashik and also the order passed by this Court on 16/04/2012 in Misc. Civil Application No. 54 of 2012 filed by appellant No. 1 against the respondent in this Court. Copies of these proceedings are filed pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court.
14. In the background of these facts, I will now consider whether custody awarded in favour of respondent by the trial Court is in the interest and welfare of the minor. A perusal of record indicates that the father of the minor expired on 28/04/2005 due to heart attack. After the demise of the father of the minor, daughter in law of the appellants left the matrimonial home and shifted to Aurangabad along with the said minor. During her life time, the said Mrs. Pallavi, daughter in law of the appellants filed a Special Civil Suit No. 336 of 2008 for partition and for separate possession against the appellants in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Nashik. She had also filed a petition u/s 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act bearing petition No. 04/2009 in the Family Court at Aurangabad against the appellants.
15. Appellant No. 1 had also admitted that the said Mrs. Pallavi had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Nashik for partition and separate possession against the appellants. In cross examination, appellant No. 1 admitted that he did not know that after the death of the daughter in law of the appellants, the minor was looked after by the respondent herein and was spending amount for her maintenance and education. Appellant no.1 admitted that after the death of Pallavi, appellants had never maintained the said minor. Appellant No. 1 had also admitted that respondent was not concerned with the suit filed by Pallavi at Aurangabad and Nashik Court. Appellant No. 1 has admitted the relationship of the respondent with the minor in cross examination. Appellant No. 1 has admitted that there is no property in the name of the father of the minor. It is also admitted that Pallavi resided with the appellants at Bhandup after marriage only for 6 months and thereafter she went for delivery and thereafter never resided with the appellants. Appellant No. 1 also admitted that he has not maintained the minor since her birth and he has not spent any educational expenses on her. Appellant No. 1 has admitted that he did not know as to in which school and in which standard the minor was taking education.
16. It is not in dispute that the appellants are staying at Bhandup. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, another daughter in law of the appellants had given a birth to a child. The appellants did not examine the son of the appellants before the trial Court to show that he was fully equipped to take care of the said minor. Appellants did not produce any documents to show that the appellants were in sound financial position to take care of the minor.
17. A perusal of the order dated 16/04/2012 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application which was filed by the appellants in this Court inter alia praying for transfer of Misc. Application No. 1 of 2010, indicates that it was the case of the appellant No. 1 himself that he is 80 years old and his wife is 74 years old. Appellant No. 1 is under regular treatment of Dr. Sanjay Phadke for severe orthopedic knee and neck problem and it is very difficult for him to travel independently to Nashik which is about 350 kms from Bhandup.
18. On the contrary, respondent has proved before the trial Court that respondent as well as her husband are practicing doctors. She alongwith her husband use to visit the said minor in residential school from Malegaon in which school the children of the respondent are also taken education. The respondent has been spending lot of money on the care and education of the minor. The appellants had admittedly opposed the proceedings filed by daughter in law of the appellants for partition and maintenance during her life time. In my view, the appellants who had opposed the proceedings for maintenance of her daughter in law and the said minor after the demise of her husband, in my view, cannot be allowed custody of the minor in this case. The respondent and her husband are doctors by profession are able to take care and to do everything for welfare of the minor. The respondent has been rightly awarded the custody by the learned trial Court. In so far as submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had addressed three letters to the father of the daughter in law of the appellants for custody and in spite of such letters, the custody was not handed over to the appellants is concerned, a perusal of record indicates that the appellants did not prove the existence of such letters before the trial Court and the said documents had not been admittedly exhibited. Appellant No. 1 himself has admitted that the appellant did not spend any amount on the minor on educational expenses or otherwise. In my view, thus there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants being natural grand parents of the minor shall be given custody of the minor.
19. In so far as issue of jurisdiction raised by the appellants is concerned, issue of jurisdiction has to be considered on the basis of averments made in the application. The learned trial Judge has framed an issue of jurisdiction. The learned trial Judge has rendered a finding that after the death of mother of the minor, as nobody was there to look after her, she was brought by the respondent at Malegaon and got her admitted in the school at Nashik. It is held that after the death of Pallavi, the said minor was residing with the respondent at Malegaon and thus the learned Judge at Malegaon had jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the application. In my view, the finding of the learned trial Judge on the issue of jurisdiction is correct and does not require any interference.
20. This Court in case of
21. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, I have perused the evidence led by both the parties before the trial Court and also the documents. Supreme Court in case of
22. Learned counsel appearing for respondent states that the appellants had never applied for having access to the child and if the appellants desire any access occasionally, the respondent has no objection to provide access to the child provided the appellants visit the place where the child stays. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants on the other hand submits that the appellants being aged, let the respondent bring the child to Bhandup to meet the appellants occasionally. In my view, if the appellants seek to have access to the minor, the appellants can apply for appropriate relief before the appropriate Court. If any such application is made by the appellants, same shall be considered by such Court on its own merits.
23. Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
