\^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) MISC APPEAL N0. •'2-13> OF 2006 Sinriia APPELLANT: z~ Ira pandey S/o Shri Sunder Lal Pandey, aged about 34 years, r/o.Civil lines near High School Balouda Bazar, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RBSPONDENTS. ~7 1^/Smt. Saroj Pandey W/o Bhupendra Pandey aged about 31 years, 2. Ku. Anjali Pandey aged about 6 years D/o. Bhupendra Pandey < Minor through natural Guardian, Mother Saroj Pandey, R/o. Village- Lata, Post Siriyadih, P.S.-Kasdol,Distt.- Raipur (CG). MEltORANDUMOFAPPEALUNDER_SECT!ON47_QF GUARDIAN 85 WARDS ACT. .-h ;. XI-HC-22 sn^F^i h-i\* 3n^?( ShHiqi ^Istl -yss •^W\f\^, w»w' ,hwvy. ^^ MA....2,Li *11*ICTT Shllch & sn^i'ronwHfCT 17.04.2006 tHat Shri Sunil Schu, coansel for None for the respondents. Heard on admission. Appellantpreferred an appli< and Wards Act 1890 (henceforth "1( ground that respondent No.2, who mother respondent No.l, who has r( of respondent No.2 , appellant is en1 Learned trial Court, held livin9 with her mother, i.e respondt Appellant neither endeavor to know cared for her welfore. Therefore, dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the appel|( her bir-fti isliving u/ith hermother age of 5 years. Smt Saroj Paride^ appellant possesses sufficient source of respondent No.2 with appellant is Here, in the instant case, it i| No.l are husband and wife, who ar^ judicial proceedings denied the respondent No.2 is illegitimate chil4 that appellant, when under maint^ We flie Srtt (=tit^t<?f41^ ^ii^il* ^ 'f^^ Tf^I^IT ^; 3lf;OT 3lA¥T appellant. tation under Seetion 25 of the 6uardi0n Act") for custody of-the wm'd on the ^ his minor dau9hter js staying with her lo sourceof income and for the welfare ^tled for her cystody. respondent No.2 since her birth is IntNo.l, and is bein9 maintained by her. about the birthof respbndent No.2 nor vide impugnedorder dated 23.01.2006, ppel|antcontended •ttiat resppndent No.2 since Saroj Pandey. Now she has crossed the has no source of income, iwherens the to maintain respondent No.2. The custody elssential for her welfare. opporent that appellant and respondent livin9 separately. Appeltantin vorious paternity and made allegations that of .respondent No.l. It is also evident snance proceeding was ordered to pay ['Tl^'^f^ -F XI-HC-22 ^g •^WIcf^, atil'M'i6.(««vli<i*l< \'^- __!_.;....*t:^fe^.;....^.^:?>l IIICTI Shli<*>""" "'""^l^ 200£ sn^r^i h-u'h sv^ 9trHT<^^if^l sn^i^wiWHfer 3- ^t^-^n *fw?if ^ fe^ <fdi^,i< ^? sifigil SD^I •padma maintenance, then only he stdrte^l since her birth is livin9 in the far assource of lively hood is con^ the welfare of a child. Appellant, legal.process to paysufficient and maintenance. Evidently, the welfare of 1} Therefore, learned court below di impugned order disdllowin9 the ap^li passed by the trial Court does no-t for any interference by this Court The appeal is liable to be dismissed. payirig maintenance. Respondent No.2 coni|)any of her mother, respondent No.l. So ^erned; it is not only the criteria to jud9e i|»hohas sources, can be compelled throigh an^ourrt to respondent No.2 for her welfare ^espondent No.2 is with respondent N6.1. i^l not commit any ille9ality by passing the ap^lication filed by.the appellant. The order suffer from any infirrnity which may ccll jdismissed summarily and it is accordingly ~—,^ ^_ Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge