DINESH JETWANI Vs. JYOTI JETWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Dinesh Jetwani against the order of the learned Family Court No. 2, Kota (Raj. ), passed on 20. 01. 2017 whereby the learned Family Court rejected Guardian & Wards Act Case No. 5/2016 filed u/s 7, 12 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act , 1890 seeking custody of minor children.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant filed a petition u/s 7,12 and 25 of The Guardian and Wards Act against the respondent seeking custody of his daughter Sambhawana and son Jayaj before the Family Court, Kota. The petitioner got married to the respondent on 21. 11. 1996 in Porwala Dharamshala Ramganj Mandi, Kota and since then they had been in cordial marital relations. After some time of marriage, the respondent's behaviour started changing and she started fighting on trivial matters. The respondent used to go to her parental house without even telling or informing the appellant. She used to spend all her time lying in bed and pretended herself to be hungry and ill. Due to this, the appellant's time was also getting wasted in stress and arguments and also the children got sick. As the children were growing up, the respondent's demand and her stubborn behaviour started increasing and also she learnt black magic from her mother and used it on the appellant as well as the children. The appellant had always been kind and respectful towards the respondent but the respondent had never been sensitive towards the appellant. On 26. 05. 2012, the respondent without informing and without the permission of the appellant left the appellant's house and went to her parental house along with the children and since then the respondent was living at her parental house. The respondent had deprived the appellant of any kind of marital happiness and by keeping him away from the children, she was upto destroying their future as well. Appellant is the best natural guardian of the daughter Sambhawana and the son Jayaj. There was no environment of education at the respondent's parental house and there was always a stressful environment. The respondent's parental house was in the busiest place of the city where there were multiple shops of mechanic. Therefore, the place where the respondent lived was not suitable enough for the complete development and nurturing of the children as the personality and the mentality of the children is affected mostly by the environment around them. In such situation, it is of prime importance that the children stay with the appellant. The appellant further stated that the respondent is unable to bear the expenses of the children as she herself is financially dependent on her father, but the appellant is able to bear all the expenses of the children as he is running a hotel in the name of his daughter Sambhawna and a stone industry in the name of his son Jayaj. Therefore, the appellant's application be accepted and he be declared the natural guardian of the daughter Sambhawna and the son Jayaj.

(3.) In reply, the respondent wife denied all the allegations and stated that the behaviour of the appellant and his family became cruel and immoral towards her due to their demand of dowry in the form of money, jewellery and expensive gifts. Also they used to beat the respondent for the demand of dowry and also did not give her sufficient food and water and threatened her to throw her out of the house. The appellant was careless about the children. The appellant himself had thrown the respondent as well as the children out of his house and is now presenting false facts in his application to save himself from paying the interim maintenance. The appellant had never taken care of the nurturing and education of the children and had never provided any kind of financial help. Both the children are also not in favour of staying in the appellant's guardianship. The appellant out of ill intention as well as to save himself from the interim maintenance was trying to take the children under his guardianship, whereas, he does not even have the appropriate means to take proper care of the children and their education. Therefore, it was prayed that the appellant's application be dismissed.