MOHINDER PAL, J. - (1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the petition filed by appellant Raghbir Singh under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short - Rs. the Act') and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for custody of the minors Prerna and Ritik was dismissed. The minors are grand -daughter and grand -son of the appellant and were born on 3.8.1996 and 29.3.2000 respectively out of the wedlock between respondent No.1 -Sunita and Singh Karam (respondent No.3) son of the appellant.
(2.) AS per facts of this case, Sunita was married to Karam Singh (respondent No.3) son of the appellant on 2.4.1995 at Village Palwal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Respondent No.3 is working in Italy for the last more than nine years. A minor daughter, namely, Prerna was born on 13.8.1996 and minor son, namely, Ritik was born on 29.3.2000 to her from this wedlock. She has no adverse interest against her daughter and son and was competent to look after the minors and had sufficient means to maintain them. After her husband left for Italy, the appellant and his family members turned her out of the matrimonial home. As matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, she obtained ex parte divorce from her husband (respondent No.3), as he neither appeared nor represented by any body before the learned District Judge in the divorce proceedings. Thereafter, she contracted second marriage with Dev Raj alias Devi Lal of Village Gamri Jattan (Bachgawan), Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. In spite of her second marriage with Devi Lal, all the needs and facilities of minors are being satisfactorily fulfilled without fail by respondent No.1, as they are living with her from their birth and never stayed with the appellant or with his family members.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of this case. While arguing before me, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the grand -parents are competent to take custody of the children and are in a better position for their upbringing. It is further submitted that the appellant has 15 acres of agricultural land and he is having sound financial position and is in a better position to meet with every need of the children including better education and better living conditions. It was the respondent No.1, who has left the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse after the son of the appellant (respondent No.3) has gone abroad for work and she contracted second marriage with Devi Lal after taking ex parte divorce from respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 is not in a position to look after the minor children as she has contracted second marriage and is not having good financial position as her second husband is a casual labourer and he is having no property. It is further submitted that Devi Lal, second husband of respondent No.1 is a drunkard and he has no source of income. The grand -children of the appellant are not studying in any good school and are living a miserable life.;