MANU/SC/0017/1965

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 201/1956

Decided On: 07.10.1965

Appellants: Gulab Bai and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Puniya

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J., J.C. Shah, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah and S.M. Sikri

JUDGMENT

P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.

1. This appeal by special leave arises from an application made by the respondent Puniya in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Jhalawar under s. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (No. 8 of 1890) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for the custody of his daughter Mt. Chitra. To this application, the respondent had impleaded the two appellants, Gulab Bai and her husband Onkar Lal. The respondent is a Kumhar by caste, whereas the appellants are Jat. The respondents' case was that the minor Chitra who was about 11 years of age at the date of the application, had been living with the appellants for the last 4 or 5 years with his consent. Whilst the minor girl was living with the appellants, she used to come to spend some time with the respondent and his wife; but for some time past, the appellants did not allow Chitra to visit her parents. That is why the respondent thought it necessary to move the Court for an order under s. 25 of the Act.

2. The claim thus made by the respondent was disputed by the appellants. They alleged that the respondent and his wife and lost some children in their infancy, and so, they decided to leave the minor in the custody of the appellants in the hope that their custody would save the child. Accordingly, the minor was entrusted to the appellants a few hours after her birth and in fact, she was given away by the respondent and his wife to the appellants to be looked after as if she was their adopted child. During all these years, the appellants have looked after the minor as their own child, have taken found care of her, and have looked after her education. The appellants and the respondent and his wife are neighbours, and the appellants denied the allegation made by the respondent that they ever obstructed the minor from visiting her parents. According to the appellants, recently an unfortunate incident had taken place between appellant No. 1 and the wife of the respondent and that was the real cause of the present application. They pleaded that as a result of the ugly incident that took place between the two ladies, The minor was frightened and appeared to be disinclined to visit her parents any longer.

3. On these pleadings, the parties led evidence to support their respective contentions. The learned trial Judge held that the child had been entrusted to the appellants soon after she was born, and that she was looked after by the appellants as if she was their daughter. He felt satisfied that in case the child was removed from the homely atmosphere which she enjoyed in the house of the appellants, that would definitely be detrimental to her welfare and would also affect her health, because she had come to took upon the appellants as her parents. The learned trial Judge examined has child in order to ascertain her own wishes, because the thought that she had attained the age of discretion and could express her wishes intelligently. He was convinced that the child definitely preferred to say with the appellants. Having come to the conclusion that it would be inconsis........