^. ) @- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR ^^T APPFAI^Mn ^ c-f'}d F£ft5T APPEAL N^). 7200^ ^' ^t^^ ^A--*' APPELLANT: ^^anjay Sinha, son of Shri Vijay Kumar Sinha, aged ^'"^^^1!^ about 36 years, resident of .«.^"1-^^ ..'^ct.^ .(^fl lA^) Tarbahar Chowk, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) .^*w .€>\ Vs RESPONbENTS: ^Non-applicant) c^-. ^Smt. Ginni Sinha, wife of Shri Sanjay Sinha, aged about 30 years, occupation-House Wife. ^2^Ku. Nisha Sinha alias Dolly, aged about 7 C.^CLOdO years, Minor through her natural guardian mother Ginni Sinha (respondent No.l). Both resident of Village Silfili, P.S. Jai Nagar, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) APPEAL UNbER SECTION 96 OF TIIE CO^E-eF~€IVIL Pft0^g&VftE7-r9ar^EA6-WITM-&E€:F£ON'47 OF THE GUARbIAN AND WARDS ACT. 1890 .J_ %) HK3H COUKT OF GHHATTISQARM ATBIIASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shrt Jusfice Prashant KumarMishra MXNo.S6of2<M19 Sai^ay Sinha Versus Smt Glnni Slntia and smother ORDER Postfor ^-09-2010. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge o^K-20TO— MN3H COURT OF CHMMTTISGArei AT BIU^PUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justfee Pnshamt Kumar NBshra APPELLANT RESPONDENT MJL No.88 012009 Sanjay Sinha Smt. Ginni Sinha and another. Miss Sharmite Singhai, covnsel for the appetlart. Shri Sanjay Patel, counset for the respondenls. ^ACt^ianr ORDER to^MMm Heard. (2) This appeal has been |ireferred by the fafther of^the m|ngi unciter Sectton 47 of the Guardian and Wards At^ 1890, jehErflai^iit oreter passed by the trial Court r^ec^ t^ 8iRR|k?a| Mcu^^ chitd. (3) The appeUant and the responGtert No.1 w^ ^-04-1^8. The respondent Np^ Ku. Nfeha ^nha wis^^^^t^^ 1999. Applteation for cus*od|y pf the resRpro^ NO^¥^m^^ appettant on the submisston that the daughter is resiCUng|n a viHagf wid the mother is not taldng care of the upbrmging of ttw cteat^^ whteh^hall ruin her future. (4) The responctert No.1 fUed Ws reply and ststed that stw ht®teeen ^eated wtth cruelty in her maArimoreal houseand CTiminal prooM<J B^8<or offence uncter Section 488 (A) of t.P.C. is peroHr^ a|ah^ftehu8t»nd. / ttwas submttked that the father wa®annoy^ t)e(»<j®eol the Nrth <rf tlie •/^^^ •^. '^ -2.- girt chitd and that chHd is obtaming educatson and is studyir^^Olass llt. Accoreling to the responctent No.1 viUage StlfiN te hardly^5 Kins. aw^ay from Surajpw where good education faciltty is ava^s^. tw|8^^ stated in the repty that the daughter te ftie only ray ofhppeinherB^s»id (5) The appetlant examined himsetf and hfe mother Mahanancte Sfeiha whereas the respondent No.1 exanw^ himsetf ni cpuiw ofenguir^ (6) The Court below has held that matrimpr^ dispy^ are pera^ between the husband and wife. The appellanl hro been^rec^^^^^ Rs.800/- per month as maintenance to the daughter. It has also been hetd that the appetlant has not pointed oiA any instenpe or exan^e to ctemonstrate that the mother is not taldng care of the daighter. tt has also been observed that since after Juty, 2000 the a^^art has neyer made any effortto vlsitand took after his daughter and that he has neyer demonstrated fatheriy tove and affectton during atl thesey^ire. (7) Counsel for the appellant has argued that in yiew of ttiie feck that the daughter is (iving m a small vittage her caistody should be handed over to the appeltant otherwise her ftrture woidd be niined, Qn the other hand counset for the respondent has at^ed that Irom the eyidenw record it ts establtehed that the appettant has never shown any inclit^tfon towards ctaughter and thsft the responcterft No.2 te qtstaming e<fcication, therefore her future is secured. (8) tn the matter of GswiwrHagpal vs. Sumed^ Mas^repcirtedfln 2009 (i) SCC 42 the Hon'ble Supreme Court h^ laid d<^ the Rrint^tes in retation to the custsody of a minor chitd. tt ha®been heW that the ^ /--^ // A< - • .v..^"^ ^^ 3- c paramount consideration fbr the Court is to detennine t»ewelfere pf the child. The Hon'bte Supreme Court has held thus in para 50 ofthe report. "50. When the court is confronted with conflRsttng demands made by the parents, each time it has to justily the ctemands. The court has not only to took at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The court then does not given emphaste on what the parties say, it has to exeroise a jurisdiotion whteh is aimed at the welfere of the minor. As observed recently in Mausain Moitrs Ganguli cww{200(^ 7 SCC 673, the court has to give due weigh^e to the chtkTs ordtnaffy contentment, heatth, education, irtelteclual ctevelopinenk and favourable surrourKtings but over and abpve phystoat comforts, fhe morat and ethfcal vataes haye atep to be noted. They are equat if not more importarrt than the othere." (9) tn the present case tt has been esteblished that s'nc®after Jyty, 2000 the appellant ha» never taken care <rf the dayghtw by sh^ fatherty affectton by vi«tingthe dayghter and maWng g»Tangemeftefor her. He had never contrtbuted or advanced financiat assistance for the daughter. The matrimoniat dispute was between hus^nd aiKl wfe txit the appettant could have contributedfor the dai^er. pn the otherharid ttie respondent has stated that the yrt is studying in CteBSs -(II. The date of birth of daughter is 12-12-1999thu8 at present she is aboyt 11 years of age and is on the veige of puberty. She has not seen her ftrther since atter Jirfy, 2000, therefore, If custody is handed oyer to the falther / appeBant, the chttd wtH be compelled tp Ih/e in an attog<s<her atmosphere. // /^~ i. ;^»?-. ;/\ Sj ^^ <?"v^^' -Al- (10) Thus, taking tnto consideration the totaltty of the ciTiuim^a^^ this Court found that <he oreter passed by the triad Court fe bas^ ^ sound exeretee of lurisdi^ion and the decisfon rejcct^Jtt^ |^R|ltein| applteatton fbr custody <rf the <tei®hterctoes not suffer from jBW^tes^t infirmfty. (11) ConsequenBy, this appeat feils WK* ts hereby cli^ntesed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge