^v·V·lJ-v^'^^J<rO^>^>uV:^J·^/^n;·^^ nUCHE-HIGH COURT GE' JUDICATURE OF CHHftTTISGARH AT BlLAS.PUR ainaleBench Jl.A. No. %| /2003_ r ^ / APPELLANT APPLICANT VERSUS RESPONDENTS /NON-APPLICANT 5^. -••^ ^9 f§??-/ ^y •^ C7 y Kausha1 Kushwaha, fi/o• BuddKiurQm, aged about 30 years/ R/o Village Chhindiya, P.S. Patna Tahsil Baikunthpur Distt Koriya C.G. Pushpa Kushwaha, W/o. Kaushal Kushwaha, aged about 27 years. Poig'a Kushwaha, D/o. Kaushal Kushwaha, aged about 8 yrs, Minor through guardian mother respondent no. 1. (Both are R/o Village Parri Tahsil Surajpur, Dlsfct. Surguja C.G.) ^PEAI-UZi-.£LJC)-J>I_GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT 1890 :- HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISC^RH AT BILASPUR MANo.981 of2CX)3 Appellant Applicant Respondents Non^applicant Kaushal Kushwaha Versys Pushpa Kushwaha & Another Appeal U/s 47 (C) of Guardian andWards Act, 1890 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.1 Present : Shri Ashok Shukla with Shri Atanu Ghosh, Advocates for the appellant. Smt. Meena Shashtri, Advocate for respondents. CTIALORDER (Passed on 4th day of March, 2010| The instant appeat is directed against theorder dated C©.09.20©3, passed by the Ist Additional District Jydge, Surajpur, Surguja, in MisceNaneous Civil Case No. 28/01 , whereby and whereuRder the appellant's application filed under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short the Act') has been rejected. The brief facts of the case, are that. the appellant and respondent No. 1 were living together. They were having two daughters namely Ku. Pooja and Ku. Jyoti. Ku. Pooja is living with her mother Pushpa i.e. respondent No. 1 and Ku. Jyoti is living wifi her father Kaushal Kushwaha. It is also stated tiat eartier the respondent No. 1 filed an applteation under Section 1^ of Cr.P.C. against the appellant for getting maintenance allowance which was allowed and a sum of Rs. 600/- (monthly) was cflrected to be paid / to Ku. Pooja for her maintenance. / The appellant filed an application on 09.05.2000 under Section 25 of the Act for taking custody of his daughter Ku. Pooja before the court oflst Additional District Judge, Surajpur. The Ist Additional District Judge, Surajpur, Surguja, on close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed, and submissions made by the parties, held the respondent No. 1 wife of the appellant; appellant is living with some other women; Ku. Pooja is being properiy maintained by her mother/respondent No. 1; Ku. Pooja herself wants to live with her mother and herwelfare is in living with her mother, rejected the application filed by the appellant for custody of minor child Ku. Pooja. Hence this appeal. Shri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel appearing for appellant would submit that wtsh and will of child is not sufficient to deny the interest of Ku. Pooja; the respondent No. 1 is a poor lady whereas the appellant is an able person to look after welfare of Ku. Pooja, and therefore, the court below has erred in re|ecting the application filed by the appellant for custody of his minor child Ku. Pooja. On the other hand, Smt. Meena Shashtri, learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that the appellart is living with another women as husband and wjfe. Ku. Pooja has attained the age of 17 years and she will become major within a period of one year; she is being properly maintained by her mother; she also wants to live with her mother/respondent No. 1. The welfare of Ku. Pooja is in living with her mother and therefore, the court below has noterred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant and / the order passed by the court below deserves to be uphekl. 7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of court below. 8. It is not in dispute that Ku. Pooja will attain the age of majority within a period of one year and thereafter she will be free to live with appellant or respondent No. 1 as per her wishes. The appellant is In-fact denying the relationship of husband and wife with respondent No. 1, meaning thereby, according to appellant, Ku. Pooja is an illegitjmate child of appellant and respondent No. 1. As per evidence of respondent No. 1, Pooja is studying in the School, being properly maintained be her mother. As per statement para 4 of Ku. Pooja, she does not want to live with her father i.e. appellant because he used to beat her. 9. In view of above facts situation of the case, the court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for custody of minor child Ku. Pooja. warranting interference ofthis court. The welfare of Ku. Pooja is in living wtth her mother i.e. respondent No. 1. 10. The appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and ts hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. r Sd/- 1 N.K-Agarwal Judge Sahu