IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.275 of 2010 HARENDRA SINGH, SON OF BHOLA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KUWARDAH, P.S. BEHIYA,DISTT- BHOJPUR ……………………………………………………….. APPELLANT Versus BALESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM AYODHA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BASMANPUR, P.S. ARRAH MUFASSIL, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR…………………………………RESPONDENT ----------- 4 21-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order under appeal dated 3rd. February, 2010 passed in Guradianship Case No. 02 of 2008 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Arrah Petitioner has claimed guardianship in respect of his son aged about 13 years and a daughter aged about 12 years and also for their custody. The claim was contested by maternal grand-father of his children mainly on the ground that within seven years of marriage appellant’s wife was done to death leading to Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2005 which is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge- I, Bhojpur in which witnesses are being examined and the minor son of the appellant is an eye witness as he has claimed to have seen the killing of his mother. The court below appears to have gone through all the relevant facts. O.P. witness no.1 is minor son of the appellant who has disclosed that he is getting good education 2 while living with his maternal grand-father. He has stated that he does not want to live with his father as he has apprehension that he may also be killed. We find that the learned Family Court has considered the matter of guardianship and custody of the minor children in proper perspective and has come to a finding that it is not beneficial for the interest of the two minor children to be placed under the guardianship and custody of the appellant. The court below has noticed that the appellant did not meet his children for the last seven years and filed the present case in 2008 only after charge sheet was filed against him in criminal case. We do not find any material to doubt the correctness of the views taken by the learned Principal Judge. The appeal is found to be without any merit. In this appeal there is no justification for issuing notice in the limitation petition. The appeal and the limitation petition is accordingly dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)