SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pandhari S/O Pundlik Mopkar vs Sau. Rukhminabai@ Archanabai … on 27 March, 2019

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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation