R.K.Mahajan, J. - (1.) Smt. Sadhana wife of Mr. Santosh Kumar Randev @ Santosh Kumar Panda has filed the above appeal against the order dated 31.5.1994 by the IInd Additional District Judge. Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 35 of 1992, Santosh Kumar Randeu v. Smt. Sadhana, under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 by virtue of which an order was made that the custody of three minor 'children namely, Abhilasha @ Nanu. Abhijeet @ Mambi and Km. Jasvi be given to the father as it is in their welfare. The order was passed taking into consideration the dubious relation of Smt. Sadhana with one Sanjiv Misra with whom she is living at Varanasi. Before proceeding straightway to the controversy the brief facts of the case are referred.
(2.) The marriage was solemnized between the parties on 20.2.1981. A daughter namely Km. Abhilasha was born on 10.12.1981. Thereafter a son Abhijeet was born on 29.8.1983. It appears that Smt. Sadhana left the house of her husband went to the house of her father at Bhopal oh 30.10.1984. It appears that litigations were ensued and a petition was filed by Santosh Kumar (Suit No. 34 of 1985) against Smt. Sadhana for restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was decreed ex-parte on 15.11.1985 by the Civil Judge, Varanasi. As a result of the intervention of the older members of the family, she came to the abode of her husband at Varanasi and again gave birth to a daughter, namely, Jasvi on 15.2.1988, In June, 1991. she went to Bhopal again at his father's house. It appears that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by Smt: Sadhana against Santosh Kumar on 15.7.1991 and it was dismissed in default on 11.5.1992. A lot of litigation has occurred between the parties and allegations have been exchanged obviously regarding the illicit relation with one Sanjeev Misra. It appears that a report of kidnapping/abducting under Section 342, IPC (wrongful confinement) was lodged against Sanjeev Misra and Sheo "Kumar.
(3.) Without going into the details of the case, the broad features of the case, of the petitioner are that the custody of the children be given to him, as he, being the natural guardian .is entitled to the custody of the children under the Guardians and Wards Act. 1890, read with Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. He further submits that since she is not living chaste and good life, the development of the children would suffer. The wife's case is that her month-in-law Smt. Annapurna Devi willed the entire property to Abhijeet son of Santosh because of ill repute and bad habits of her son on 4.2.1987 and the father of the ward had made an agreement to sell the property to one Shri Ram Housing Finance and Investment India Limited, Mahmorganj, Varanasi and he wants to grab the property. He further asserts in the written statement that the parents of Sanjiv Misra and that of Smt. Sadhana are family friends. In fact, they were instrumental in getting them married. At the most, he is rendering occasional help of routine nature in filing petitions etc.;