(1) IN THE HONyBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR rC.G.Y fcg F.A. ( M) No /2008 ^ ArPPELLANT: ^ ^Sachan Rajwade, S/o Dala Rajwade, aged about 38 years, Occupation-Agriculturist/ Labourer, R/o Village-Bakna, , r\/u viiidge-DaKna, ••^^^!^'7 p-s- DhourPur'District-sar9uja ^•1 ^^ '^••"" (C.G.) VERSUS ./ R^SPONDENT K Dulari Devi, W/o Sachan Rajwade, D/o Sukhdev Rajwade, aged about 30 years, R/o Village-Bakna, P.S. Dhourpur, presently resident of Villag^-Jagdishpur, P.S. & Tahsil - Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ^' FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 Y2^ OF THF FAMILY CQURT ACT. 19S4 c '&^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Division Bench Appeilant Respondent Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'bie Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ« First A&peai (M} No.68 of 2008 Sachan Rajwade Versus Dulari Devi (First Appeal under Section 19 (2) ofthe Famjiy Courts Act) Present:- Shri A.N. Pandey, eounsei for the appeiiant. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsei for the respondent ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 7tn day of January. 2010) 1. -By this appeai, the appeliant seeks to chatienge ihe iegaiity and valldjfr^ of the order dated 13-5-2008 (Annexure - A/1) passed by tie Jydge, Famiiy Court, Ambikapur, In Misc. cjvll sult No,16/2CX)7, whereby the appllcation flied by the appellant under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been rejected. 2. The fects, in brief, are that the appel!ant being the father of minor giris nameiy; Ku. Kameshwari and Ku. Dhaneshwari, who w®reaged about 9 and 6 years respectively at the time of fiiing of the case i.@. on 4-10-2CK)6, daims their guardlanshlp on th©ground that the appeiJant is in a better posltion to nurture, provldle necessary care aod education to female children. 3. We have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto,. 4. !t is an admitted position that th®appeilant works as a Jabour, he has to Jeave the house and during that period nobody Is there to ttke care of the minor femaie chiidren, who were aged about 9 years and 6 years at the time of fi!ing of the case i.e. on 4-10-2006. Now the chlldren have crossed the age of 10 years and they need proper care and attentlon by a iady, who ss ijving in the house< The chiJdren may not be Seft alone in the house day time. AdmittedSy the appeitant is not in a position to take care of them. We are of the considered opinion that under the facts sityatlon of the case as aforestated, no interference Is warranted, The order passed by the Court beiow is just and proper. In the result, the appeaS falis and is dismlssed^ No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^N^