Karansinh Bahadarsinh Jadeja vs Gunvantba Rajendrasinh Jadeja & on 10 July, 2017

C/FA/2286/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2286 of 2017

KARANSINH BAHADARSINH JADEJA….Appellant(s)
Versus
GUNVANTBA RAJENDRASINH JADEJA 1….Defendant(s)

Appearance:
MR.KARNA H DHOMSE, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR JEET J BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

Date : 10/07/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgement
and order dated 1.12.2016 passed by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar
(hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”),
whereby the trial Court has dismissed the
application of the appellant – applicant under
Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”),
seeking custody of the minor child Dilipsinh
Rajendrasinh Jadeja.

2. As per the case of the appellant, the appellant –
original applicant is the paternal uncle of minor
Dilipsinh Rajendrasinh Jadeja and the respondent
No.1 is the mother and grandmother respectively

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 23:37:16 IST 2017
C/FA/2286/2017 ORDER

of the minor. The father of the said minor child
and younger brother of the appellant,
Rajendrasinh Jadeja had died on 1.6.2006. It is
further case of the appellant that the appellant
did not have any issue, and therefore, the said
Dilipsinh Rajendrasinh Jadeja was staying with
the appellant only. After the death of the
brother of the appellant, some disputes had
arisen with the respondent No.1, and she was not
allowing the minor to meet the applicant. The
appellant – applicant, therefore, had submitted
an application under
Section 7 of the said Act
before the trial Court, seeking custody of the
minor child. The said application has been
rejected by the trial Court vide the impugned
order, against which the present appeal has been
filed.

READ  Sarita vs Manoj Kumar on 17 March, 2017

3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned
Advocate for the appellant that the appellant was
taking care of the minor child Dilipsinh
Rajendrasinh Jadeja right from his birth but
after the death of his younger brother,
respondent No.1 was not allowing the minor to see
him. According to him, the welfare of the child
would be better taken care of by the appellant
than the respondents.

4. The Court does not find any substance in the said
submission. The respondent No.1 being the mother
of the child and there being nothing adverse
against her, which would dis-entitle her to have

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 23:37:16 IST 2017
C/FA/2286/2017 ORDER

the custody of her own child, the appellant who
is the paternal uncle could not claim the
custody. The Court below has elaborately
appreciated the evidence on record and has
rejected the application of the appellant under
Section 7 of the said Act.

5. There being no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order passed by the trial Court, the
present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is
dismissed accordingly.

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.)
vinod

Page 3 of 3

HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 23:37:16 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *