The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that, the custody of the minor child to be given to father who is the natural guardian as per Section 6 of Act of 1956.
This was held in the case of ANAND KUMAR AND ANR. VERSUS LAKHAN JATAV (FIRST APPEAL No. 2526 of 2018), which was presided over by Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Anand Pathak.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Respondent in the case was married to the daughter of the Appellant, The Respondent and his wife had a son in 2016, the wife went back to her maternal house who committed suicide there.
Therefore, case against respondent at the instance of appellants under Section 304-B, 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition act was registered.
The respondent filed a case for the custody of his minor son stating him to the natural guardian of the child and He is able to maintain his child as he is a Govt. Employee, a Constable in Indo-Tibetan Border Police (I.T.B.P.), however the appellants stated that since criminal proceedings were pending under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC against the respondent and he may be convicted therein. Respondent’s father consumes liquor and his mother is differently abled. Coupled with this fact, respondent is in transferable job, therefore, he cannot look after his child properly.
Family Court after considering the rival submissions and evidence surfaced over the record passed the impugned order; whereby, respondent being father was found to be the natural guardian and looking to the welfare of the child gave his custody to respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, maternal grandparents as appellants are before High Court.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The court held that father as per Section 6 of Act of 1956, is Natural guardian of minor and since he is his biological father also, therefore, statute also favours the cause of respondent as father.
Further the court stated that respondent being employee of Central Paramilitary Force, minor will get better exposure in life and would have access to different regions and cultures and therefore, growth of his personality would be more prominent in guardianship of his father rather than in company of his maternal grandparents and although the appellant has ample resources as Contractor but when he was called by the Court to establish his resources and regular income then he could not make sufficient explanation to bring home the fact that his finances are sufficient enough to match the growing requirement of minor with passage of time.
The court dismissed the appeal by making a comparative analysis of the resources of the parties and emotional attributes involved in the case then after balancing of the totality of the circumstances. The conclusion is that the child’s welfare lies in living with his father.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VYSHNAVI KRISHNAN.
