IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.344 of 2008 6 18.1.2010 Jimedar Yadav, Son of Shri Kali Singh, Resident of Village- Keshrari, Police Station- Daud Nagar, District- Aurangabad ....... Applicant / Appellant VERSUS 1. Munna Yadav, Son of Jaddu Yadav 2. Sukarwa Devi, wife of Munna Yadav Both are residents of Village- Katharua, Police Station- Aurangabad (T) District Aurangabad (Bihar) 3. Chanwa Devi wife of Doman Yadav 4. Doman Yadav, Son of no known, Both are Nos.3 &4 resident of Village- Fateya, Police Station- Aurangabad (M) District Aurangabad (Bihar) ........ Respondents/ Respondents --------- For the Appellant : M/s Bajarangi Lal and Dr Leelawati Kumari, Advocates For the Respondents : None -------- By the impugned order under appeal dated 25th June, 2008, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad has dismissed Guardians Case No.6 of 2005/ 2 of 2007 and rejected the appellant’s application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 2. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as from the facts appearing from the records, it is clear that the appellant is claiming guardianship in respect of a male child born in 1994 on account of earlier marriage with Chanwa Devi. It is the 2 finding of the Family Court that soon after the marriage in 1992 this appellant deserted Chanwa Devi and chose to marry another woman with whom he is still living and he preferred his claim for guardianship in the year 2005 when he came to know that the male child, Ram Adhir Yadav, has been gifted with some properties by his maternal grand mother i.e. mother of Chanwa Devi. 3. On going through the facts and reasonings adopted by the learned Family Court, we find that he has rightly allowed the boy Ram Adhir Yadav now aged about 16 years, under the guardianship of his mother and has rejected appellant’s claim for guardianship as a father when the appellant living with his second wife took no care of Chanwa Devi or Ram Adhir Yadav, the boy for long number of years. 4. In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal and hence, it is summarily dismissed but without costs. (Dipak Misra,CJ) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) sk