HiGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P.SHARSVSA, ^ IVianu Ram Vs. JhilRI POST FOR PROUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER ON 19/8/2010 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^%\ PetltioRer Manu Ram S/'o SuRhdeo, Aged about 36 years, R/o ViIEage Parpa; Tehsll - JagdaSpur, Dlst : Bastar ResDondsrst Versus JhHki W/o Late H.R. Vishwas, Aged about 32 years, R/o Bhatagudapara, Vliiage ~ Rajpur, Tshsli - Jagdaipur, Dist: Bastar (C.G.) (Wrlt Petitlon under Articie 227 of the Constltutlon of Sndia) (SB: Hon'ble SVIr. T.P. Sharnna, J.) Present:- yr.Prafuli Bharat, counsei forths petitioner. Mr.R.N.Jha, counsel forthe respondent. ORDER (Passed on 19 August, 2010) 1. Hsard. 2. S have perused the order dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure PM) passed by the 4th Additionai Dtetrict Judge (F.T.C.), Bastar, Jagda!pur, in IVsisc. Csvii Appeal No.2/2004 and the order dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure P/3) passed bythe 1st Civii Judge Class-l, Jagdaipur, In Mlsc. Civi! Appeal No.6/2002. 3. As per claim of the parties, partles are Hsndus and husband and Vy'lfe. IVIinor child Pawan is residing with ths present respondent slnce hls blrth. SVIalntenance has also been awarded to mlnor Pavv'an agalnst the present petstioner The present petitsoner has flled the petitlon for custody of hls son Pawan before the 1st Clvll Judge C5ass~l, Jagd-alpur whlch was allowed vide order dated 24.2.2004. Same v/as chailenged by the respondent before the appeiiate Court and the appeljate Court whiie aliovving the appeal has dismlssed the ciaim of the petitsoner for custody of minor Pawan. 4. Lsarned counsei appearing for the petjtloner submitted that weSfare of the y chiid ss paramount considerstion and as per Sectlon 6 of the Hlndu yinority and Guardlanship Act, 1956, normsliy fathsr ofthe chlld is naturai •-? ^'', . ! ^y •2.- guardian of minor after the age of five years. His son Pawan was born in January, 1993 and at the time of flling of the petstton, he was aged about nine years, therefore, the petitioner is entstled for custody of child. The petitionsr Is working as teacher and he is more competsnt for betterment of the child in place of the respondent who js mald servant having no moral status. She js worRing In the house of one H.R. Vishwas and as a result of illldt reiation with one H.R. Vishvvas, she is already having two chlldren whtoh will adverseiy effect the mentai deveiopment ofths chiid. 5. On the other hand, Searned counsel for the respondent submitted that aithough the present respondent is working as maid ser^ant and presently she Is working in the house of one H.R. Vishwss §ndas a resuit of lllicit reiation wlth H.R. Vsshwas, she is havsng two chiidren but still she is mother of mlnor chiid Pawan. She is discharglng hsr duty. At present Pavv'an is studylng In rallway school, she is provlding better education, hls son Is residlng with her slnce his blrth and presentiy he is agsd about 17 years. The present petitioner has filed the petltion aftsr award of maintsnance sgalnst him. Learned counsei further submitted that weSfars of msnor Is with mother and not wsth father. 6. !n case of custody of mtnor, weifare of mlRor is paramount consideratlon. Admlttedly, In the present case, mlnor Is residing witih her mother vsz., respondent slnce hls blrth. When the petitioR was flled for custody, his age Vi/as more than nlne years. K4aintenar.ee order agasnst the petltloner jn favour of minor was in exlstence. Presently, minor Is stlii in custody of the respondent and at present; he is aged about 17 years. 7. in the present case, the respondent has speclftealiy stated that she Is providing education and nursing hls chiid, her chiid Is studying in railway schooi. She has admitted that she is recslving malnteRance of her chlld. The petitioner has not shown anything that prior to fiiing of the petition or prior to the order of malntenance whether he has provsded anythlng to his child to safe his future wlth a view to provide better education and other facsiities. In the absence of such fact, it Is dlfficuit to hoid that Vv'eSfare of minor Is wlth the petstioner and not with the mother/respondent. Even otherwise, chiid Is at the verge of attaining majority and thereafter no questlon of custody wiii be arisen. $') -^. ^--1.. B/- -3-- 8. S do not fsnd any iilegailty in the order impugned warranting any interference under Articje 227 of the Constltutjon of india. Consequentiy, the petition being devoid of merlt is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dlsmissed. No order as to costs. -____ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 0