- (1.) A petition under Section 7 and 10 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short "the Act of 1890") was filed by appellant Ramdiya claiming custody of his minor grandson namely, Sameer from Sudesh Kumari, mother of the child. The petition was dismissed by learned Guardian Judge, Jind, vide judgment dated 04.04.2013 passed in petition No. 33 of 2010 dated 06.08.2010, assailing which the instant appeal has been filed.
(2.) Precisely the facts garnered from the record are as under :- Appellant Ramdiya, being paternal grandfather of minor Sameer, pleaded that Sudesh Kumari, his daughter-in-law, had left the matrimonial home on her own volition five months prior to the filing of the petition and had forcibly taken the minor, his grandson, with her. He alleged that Sudesh Kumari had openly challenged that she will keep the custody of the minor until she obtains his entire property. She was a lady, who could even kill the child for the sake of money. Since the time she had taken the child, his health was deteriorating. The other family members of Sudesh Kumari were not happy with the minor child and his future seemed to be dark if left in her custody. Pleading that he was in the capacity to give better education, nourishment and atmosphere to the minor than the respondent, the appellant prayed that Sudesh Kumari be directed to hand over custody of the minor to him and he be appointed the guardian of his person and property.
(3.) The petition was contested by Sudesh Kumari. In the written reply filed by her, she submitted that she being mother of the minor is his natural guardian. She had been providing all necessities to him as required for his welfare. She also alleged that the instant petition had been filed by Ramdiya (appellant) just to grab money and the property inherited by the minor.;