Dismissed

Santosh Das Manikpuri v. Ramadhar

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2024CR/97/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Paternal grandparents sought custody of two minors whose parents died in an accident; the children had lived with maternal grandparents since 2018. Courts below rejected the application on welfare grounds, and the High Court dismissed the civil revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Santosh Das Manikpuri Vs Ramadhar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶3

2024:CGHC:35687

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CR No. 97 of 2022

¶7

1 - Santosh Das Manikpuri S/o Gokuldas Manikpuri Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Boiergaon (Panktiya), Police Station And Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Gayatri Bai W/o Santosh Das Manikpuri Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Boiergaon (Panktiya), Police Station And Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶9

...Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Ramadhar S/o Jethuram Satnami Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Madeli, Police Station And Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Budha Bai W/o Ramadhar Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Madeli, Police Station And Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Applicants : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Non-applicants/respondents : None appears though served

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

11.09.2024

¶18

Heard.

¶19

The applicants who are grandfather and grandmother of the wards have filed this civil revision challenging therein order passed in Civil Appeal No.25A/2019 dated 03.08.2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the applicants was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-1 Gariyaband, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) dated 17.10.2019 was affirmed.

¶20

-2-

¶21

The facts of the present case are that an application under Section 10 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of the minors namely, Bindiya and Sahildas was filed by the applicants on the ground that the mother and father of the wards died in an accident on 23.03.2018. The wards also sustained injuries and they were admitted at Maikahara Hospital Raipur (C.G.). Thereafter, the wards were taken by the non-applicants who are maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother. The applicants moved an application under Section 97 & 98 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gariyaband (C.G.) which was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2019. Thereafter, grandfather and grandmother filed an application for custody of the wards before the learned Civil Judge Class-1, Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶22

A reply was filed by the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother and the contents of the application were denied.

¶23

Learned Civil Court vide order dated 17.10.2019 considered the oral and documentary evidence. During the course of the proceeding, the wards appeared before the learned Trial Court but they refused to recognize their grandfather and grandmother. The Court opined that as the wards were comfortable with their maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother and therefore, taking into consideration the welfare and interest of the wards, the application moved by the applicants herein was rejected.

¶24

An appeal was preferred by the applicants and the learned Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 03.08.2022 affirming the findings recorded by the learned Civil Court.

¶25

Mr. Kuldeep, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants argued that the applicants are grandfather and grandmother of the wards and earlier wards were staying along with them. He further argued that while the wards were hospitalized immediately after the accident, the non-applicants/maternal

¶26

¶27

grandfather and maternal grandmother took them to their house. He further submitted that the applicants herein would take proper care and protection of the wards and the Courts below have committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved by the applicants herein.

¶28

I have heard Mr. Kuldeep, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and perused the records also.

¶29

From a perusal of the record, it appears that on 23.03.2018, the father and mother of the wards died in an accident and in that accident, the wards had also sustained injuries and while they were hospitalized, they were taken by the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother to their house. The wards are pursuing their studies in school at Village-Madeli, Police Station and Tahsil-Chhura, District Gariyaband (C.G.) where the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother are residing. Since the year 2018, the wards are staying along with the non-applicants herein. The wards were called before the Trial Court and they refused to recognize the applicants herein. They were comfortable along with their maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother. In the case of the Guardians and Wards Act,1890 the interest and welfare of the wards are to be seen.

¶30

In the present case, as wards are happy along with their maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Courts below have not committed any error of law in passing the order. Consequently, the present civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Rekha

Santosh Das Manikpuri v. Ramadhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Santosh Das Manikpuri v. Ramadhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.L. Sandhilya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Singh Bisen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Lal Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durjan Vs Balsingh

Gouram Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Govind Kumar Mishra Vs Shyam Sundar Agrawal