HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 787 / 2018
Naurang Ram S/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste
Soni, Resident of Chak 44 N.D.R. Tehsil Pilibanga District
Hanumangarh.
—-Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sonu W/o Naurang Ram D/o Krishan Lal, Aged About 30
Years, By Caste Soni, Resident of Ward No. 16, Behind Bus Stand,
Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.
—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoriya
For Respondent(s) :
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Judgment / Order
Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas
23/04/2018
This time barred misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant
Naurang Ram under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act,
1890 against the judgment dated 21.12.2017 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case
No.30/2016 by which the learned court dismissed the application
filed by the appellant under Section 25 of the Act of 1890.
As per the facts of the case, the appellant being father filed
an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1890 before the
Family Court, Sri Ganganagar for custody of his minor sons Harish
9 years and Dheeraj 8 years stating therein that marriage of
(2 of 3)
[CMA-787/2018]
appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 30.6.2004 at
Dadulshahar and from the wedlock of appellant with the
respondent, two sons Harish and Dheeraj were born and they are
residing with the respondent wife. According to the appellant the
respondent filed a complaint of domestic violence against the
appellant and his family members, which is said to be pending in
which false allegations were levelled that appellant is having 68
bighas of land in his name and respondent wife is blackmailing the
appellant and his family members so as to grab the said land in
which the parents of the respondent are also involved. So many
allegations are levelled by the appellant against the respondent for
claiming custody of his two minor sons.
The learned Family Court rejected the application on the
ground that appellant was arrested in connection with offence
under Section 304B IPC for the death of his first wife in which he
remained in custody, but ultimately acquitted from the charge and
another FIR was registered against him in which after
investigation FR was given, but the learned Family Court while
framing two issues held that due to conduct of the appellant, he is
not entitled for custody of two sons Harish and Dheeraj because
the welfare of both the sons is in residing with the mother.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that
the allegation under Section 304 IPC was totally false, therefore,
after trial, he was acquitted from the charge levelled against him
and in another case, FR was filed after investigation, therefore,
these two cases cannot be treated as ground to deny the custody
of two sons. The learned Family Court has committed a grave
(3 of 3)
[CMA-787/2018]
error while rejecting his application for custody because being
father, the appellant is entitled for custody of both the sons.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant time barred
appeal, we are of the opinion that after discussing the entire
evidence and the conduct of the appellant, the application has
been rejected looking to the welfare of both the sons, therefore,
there is no question to quash the order impugned because the
order has been passed after considering entire evidence so also
considering the conduct of the appellant with regard to his
criminal activities.
In view of the above, the instant misc. appeal listed in the
defect side is hereby dismissed.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA) J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J.
cpgoyal/ps
