ISIDORE BOSE Vs. MRS. S. BROWN AND ANR.
LAWS(P&H)-1950-8-5
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 28,1950

Isidore Bose Appellant
VERSUS
Mrs. S. Brown And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against an order passed by Mr. Prahlad Singh Bindra, Guardianship Judge of Delhi allowing the petition of Mrs. S. Brown to be appointed the guardian of the minor Sudhir Edgar Bose in Case No. 68 of 1946.
(2.) SUDHIR Edgar Bose is the son of Isidore Bose, the Appellant before me, and of Lydia Bose who is Respondent 2 in the appeal. He was born on 8 -8 -1939 and at the time of the order of the learned Guardianship Judge he was 8 years and 10 months old. Mrs. Lydia is the daughter of Dr. Mrs. S. Brown who was the Petitioner in the Court below. She made an application to the Guardianship Judge for her appointment as the guardian of the person of Sudhir Edgar Bose, but the father Isidore Bose opposed this application and applied under Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the child. The mother Lydia Bose also filed, an application for appointment as guardian of the person of the minor. The family in which the minor was born does not seem to have boon a happy one. Isidore and Lydia were married in 1937 and there seems to have arisen some trouble between the husband and the wife soon after. The wife in her evidence has made serious allegations of cruelty, mal -treatment and even unnatural offences committed on her against the husband. She has also charged him with adultery. The husband has also made allegations of adultery against the wife, but these are not matters the correctness of which, is before me excepting; that I have to take these matters into consideration when deciding as to who should be appointed the guardian of the minor.
(3.) THE minor was born in year 1939 at Bareilly. At that time the grandmother Mrs. Brown got an appointment at Lucknow. Isidore Bose is alleged to have told Lydia that he could not look after her and the child and that she should take them away, and there is evidence to show that when the child was only about six days old he was removed by the grandmother along with the mother to Lucknow and both of them stayed with the grandmother for some time, and although the grandmother took both of them back to Bareilly, they were sent back early in September 1939. The reason given is that the child was ill. There is also evidence to show that while the family was living at Bareilly the grandmother was contributing to their expenses. Soon after the grandmother seems to have come to Delhi and the mother as well as the child also came to Delhi. This time the reason given is that the mother had to appear for the Matriculation Examination of the Punjab University. They then returned to Bareilly, but for some reason or another. The mother and the child were again sent back to Delhi where the grandmother was living. The mother and the child were going to and fro from the husband's house at Bareilly and the house of the grandmother at Lucknow and Delhi.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.