HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1128 / 2015
1. Jagdish Puri S/o Late Shri Shanker Puri, aged 49 years, R/o
Mandphia Charnoka, Tehsil and District Bhilwara.
2. Smt. Jhamku Devi W/o Jagdish Puri, aged 39 years, R/o
Mandphia Charnoka, Tehsil and District Bhilwara.
1. Amba Devi D/o Shri Ram Giri W/o Shri Ramesh Puri
Goswami, R/o Mandphia Charnoka, at present F-257,
2. Narendra Giri S/o Late Shri Narayan Giri R/o Kanera, at
present F-257, Bapunagar, Bhilwara.
3. General Public.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellants applied to be appointed as a guardian of a
person of their minor grand-daughter who was aged 6 years when
the petition was filed.
3. Cause pleaded in the petition was that after the death of
their son, residing with them for some time, their daughter-in-law
got remarried and from the second marriage was blessed with a
son. It was pleaded their daughter-in-law and her second husband
were both working and thus as per the appellants the two had no
(2 of 4)
time to look after the grand daughter of the appellants. It was
also pleaded that the second husband of the daughter-in-law
maltreated the appellants grand-daughter and on one occasion
due to beatings her ribs got fracture.
4. The respondents chose not to defend the proceedings by
5. The learned Judge, family Court dismissed the petition on an
erroneous understanding of the law. As per the learned Judge, in
view of Section 19 (b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 relief
could not be granted.
6. The learned Judge overlooked the fact that Section 19
pertains to a person being appointed as guardian of the property
of a minor and lays emphasis that if a father or mother of a minor
is living, no other person should be appointed as a guardian
unless it is pointed out that the father or the mother is unfit to be
guardian of the person of the minor.
7. The grand-daughter of the appellants would be aged
between 11 years and 12 years as on today. The appellants are
residing in a village about 40 km from the town of Bhilwara. The
natural mother and the foster father of the girl reside in the city of
Bhilwara. Further, except for statement on oath by the appellants
they gave no material to show that the foster father of their
grand-daughter subjected her to beatings and as a result thereof
on one occasion she received fracture of the ribs.
8. That the natural mother of the grand-daughter of the
appellants is a working woman and her second husband is also
working is not ground to hold that two cannot discharge the duties
(3 of 4)
towards the minor grand-daughter of the appellants.
9. Unfortunately for the appellants their counsel, neither at the
trial nor in the instant appeal, made any request for visitation
rights to the appellants to meet their grand-daughter.
Unfortunately, the physical company between the appellants and
their grand-daughter was parted when the grand-daughter was
aged 2 years. She would hardly remember the appellants today.
10. It is in the interest of the grand-daughter that she grown up
knowing her grand-parents.
11. To create the bond between the appellants and their grand-
daughter we have two options. Either to call the minor to the
Court in Jodhpur so that after the grand-daughter familiarizes
herself with the appellants, directions can be issued to the
daughter-in-law of the appellants to permit the overnight
visitation right. The second option could be to restore the petition
with the direction to the Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara to do
12. Since the appellants reside in a village 40 km from Bhilwara
city and the respondents reside in Bhilwara city, it would be better
that the Judge, Family Court would do the needful.
13. Maintaining the impugned order dated 16.03.2015, we
restore Civil Misc. Case No.152/2013 filed by the appellants which
has been decided by the learned Judge, Family Court vide
impugned order dated 16.03.2015. At the remained stage the
learned Judge, Family Court would not proceed to decide whether
appellants need to be appointed as a guardian of a person of their
grand-daughter. The learned Judge would facilitate meeting with
(4 of 4)
the appellants and their grand-daughter, require the respondents
to produce the appellants’ grand-daughter in the Court. Once the
learned Judge, Family Court finds that the child is comfortable
with her grand-parents interim meeting rights with the grand-
daughter at appellants’ residence for short duration could be
granted. Needless to state wishes of the child would be
ascertained but not at the first meeting, for the reason appellants
would be strangers to the child. The Judge, Family Court would
first facilitate at least 4-5 meetings between the appellants and
their grand-daughter before ascertaining the wishes of the minor
14. Directing as above, the appeal is disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.