ao96.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.96/2013
PETITIONER : Pandhari S/o Kundlik Mopkar
Aged about 43 years, Occ. Farmer,
R/o Walki Jahagir, Tq. Distt. Washim.
…VERSUS…
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sau. Rukhminabai @ Archanabai Pandhari
Mopkar, aged about 36 years, Occ. Nil.
2. Arvind S/o Pandhari Mopkar
Aged about 12 years.
3. Ku. Sapna Pandhari Mopkar,
Aged about 11 years.
4. Karan S/o Pandhari Mopkar,
Aged about 7 years.
Respondent No.2 to 4 are minor by GAL
mother respondent no.1.
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are R/o Toe,
Post Kokalgaon, Tq. Distt. Washim.
———————————————————————————————-
Shri Raju Kadu, Counsel h/f Shri S.D. Chande, Counsel for petitioner/appellant
None for the respondents
———————————————————————————————-
CORAM : ARUN D. UPADHYE, J.
DATE : 27/03/2019
::: Uploaded on – 29/03/2019 29/03/2019 23:16:10 :::
ao96.13.odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal against order is filed by the
petitioner/appellant under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 challenging the judgment and order dated 20/9/2013
passed by the Principal District Judge, Washim in Misc. Judicial Case
No.43/2010.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned
Principal District Judge, Washim has rejected the petition with costs.
This appeal was admitted on 27/2/2017 and was waiting for its turn
for final hearing.
3. I have heard Shri Raju Kadu, learned Counsel holding for
Shri S.D. Chande, learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant. None
appears for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the appellant is the father of three minor children.
However, two children are now major and therefore, he submitted
that at least custody of one minor child be given to the appellant. The
learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment,
reported in 2017 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 1063 (Vivek
Singh…Versus…Romani Singh). The learned Counsel for the
::: Uploaded on – 29/03/2019 29/03/2019 23:16:10 :::
ao96.13.odt
3
appellant has also submitted that the appellant being the father of the
children is entitled for custody of the children. However, the learned
Principal District Judge, Washim has wrongly rejected the petition.
The appeal against order, therefore, be allowed.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and
after perusal of the impugned judgment and order and the material
placed on record, it appears that the appellant has filed petition for
custody of three minor children. The petition was registered as Misc.
Judicial Case No.43/2010. At the time of filing of the petition, the
minor children, i.e., respondent nos.2 to 4 were shown aged about 9
years, 8 years and 4 years respectively.
5. It further appears that the learned Principal District
Judge, Washim has made enquiry with the children and they have
flatly refused to go with the father and stated that they are happy
with their mother. The respondent no.4 was four years’ old at the
time of filing the petition. Now, the respondent no.4 is aged about 12
years and is able to understand his future. No ground whatsoever is
mentioned in the appeal to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order. The submission put forth on behalf of the appellant for
handing over the custody of at least one child therefore cannot be
::: Uploaded on – 29/03/2019 29/03/2019 23:16:10 :::
ao96.13.odt
4
accepted.
6. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the appellant is concerned, after going through the same,
I am of the view that the same is not applicable to the case at hand
case, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal against
order filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and the same is
liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Appeal Against Order No.96/2013 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Wadkar, P.S.
::: Uploaded on – 29/03/2019 29/03/2019 23:16:10 :::
