Sachin Kalra vs Smt. Jyoti Kalra on 13 September, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1323 / 2017
Sachin Kalra S/o Shri Subhash Kalra, aged about 34 years, by
Caste Arora, R/o House No. 226, Mukharji Nagar, Sri Ganganagar,
District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

—-Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jyoti Kalra W/o Shri Sachin Kalra, D/o Shri Subhash Chabra,
by Caste Arora, R/o Near Ramdev School, Kamla Colony, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).

—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.J. Gupta
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
13/09/2017

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order

dated 07.04.2017 passed by learned Family Court, Sriganganagar

in Civil Misc. Case No.19/2016.

By the Order aforesaid, learned Family Court dismissed an

application preferred as per provisions of Section 25 of the

Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, “the Act of 1890”).

In brief, factual matrix of the case is that respondent entered

into a wedlock with appellant-applicant on 13.09.2007, as per

Hindu customs and rites. The couple is having a male child who

was born on 29.01.2010. Since birth, the boy is residing with his

mother, the respondent. Since 30.05.2014, the couple is

residing separately and a divorce petition preferred by the

respondent has already been granted and a decree to annul the
(2 of 3)
[CMA-1323/2017]

marriage dated 13.09.2007 has already been granted.

The appellant preferred an application under Section 25 of

the Act of 1890 with the assertion that being father he is a natural

guardian of the male child and, therefore, his custody is required

to be given to him.

Learned Family Court, after examining the entire evidence

available on record, arrived at the conclusion that the welfare of

the child demands to continue the custody with his mother.

In appeal the argument advanced by learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the Court below has

taken into consideration the irrelevant aspects while dealing with

the issue pertaining to custody of child. It is emphasized that as

per the evidence available on record the issues taken into

consideration too are not based on well founded facts.

We do not find any merit with the argument advanced.

Learned trial Court noticed that the appellant is facing a trial

for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and there are

serious allegations even to misuse of information technology to

the extent of keeping and watching porn on Artificial Intelligence

Devices. Learned Court below has also taken into consideration

the facts pertaining to the cruelty, advanced by the respondent

while pursuing her application under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act which ultimately came to be accepted.

Besides the above, the Court also noticed that the male child

is residing with his mother since birth and she is taking adequate

care of his welfare. Pertinent to note that the Court has secured
(3 of 3)
[CMA-1323/2017]

right to visit in favour of the appellant.

In entirety, we are of the view that learned Family Court

while rejecting application under Section 25 of the Act of 1890

kept in mind the welfare of the child. The order, as such, does not

suffer from any wrong that may warrant interference in appellate

jurisdiction. The appeal hence is dismissed.

It is made clear that dismissal of this appeal will not be an

impediment for moving application afresh on change of

circumstances due to any reason including the acceptance of the

appeal preferred by the appellant to challenge the divorce decree

or otherwise.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR) J. (GOVIND MATHUR) J.

Ramesh/13

Leave a Comment

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