Ajit Singh Pahra v. Mandeep Kaur Parha

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 07.05.2024, passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur (for short `the Family Court'), whereby the petition under Section 25 of The Guardians and Wards, 1890 filed by the appellants for the custody of their grandchildren, was dismissed. 2.

The appellants, being the grandparents of the minor children, had filed the aforesaid petition for their custody, inter alia, pleading therein that they had retired from respectable positions and enjoyed good reputation in the society. It was further pleaded that their only son, namely, Hardeep Singh married respondent No.1Mandeep Kaur in 2010 and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. In 2015, respondent No.1 (their daughter in-law) pressurized the appellants and their son to settle in Canada on PR basis, whereas the

son of the appellants was serving in BSNL at Gurdaspur as TTA and was well settled. As the respondent No.1 was not willing to live in the company of the appellants, therefore, in order to buy peace, the appellants had supported her financially for her settlement in Canada and spent Rs.20,00,000/- from their own pockets. On 29.07.2015, respondent No.1 along with her late husband left for Canada. On 29.10.2015, the appellants received the news of the sad demise of their only son in an accident. It was further pleaded that after the death of their only son, respondent No.1 started avoiding them. She had kept the minor children at some unknown place at the behest of respondent No.2-Gian Singh. It was further pleaded that the appellants had apprehensions that respondent No.1 would be solemnizing a second marriage, leaving the future of the minor children in dark. It was further asserted that the appellants, being the grandparents of the minor children, should be granted the custody of the children. 3.

Notice was issued to the respondent No.1 but she did not appear and was accordingly proceeded as ex-parte. 4.

Respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement, stating therein that the custody petition was not maintainable as the children were in the lawful custody of their mother (i.e. respondent No.1) at Canada. It was further stated that respondent No.1 along with her children was legally entitled to their respective shares in the property inherited by late Hardeep Singh (husband of respondent No.1). It was further stated that as the appellants wanted to alienate the property/share belonging to the late husband of respondent No.1, therefore, she was compelled to file a civil suit for declaration and

permanent injunction at Gurdaspur and the parents had concealed the said facts in the custody petition.

5.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Family Court:- "1.

Whether petitioner is entitled for the custody of minor child as prayed for? OPP 2.

Whether the petitioner is not maintainable in its present form? OPR 3.

Relief."

6.

In evidence, appellant No. 1 examined himself as PW-1, besides tendering into evidence Mark-P1 On the other hand, respondent No.2 appeared as RW-1.

7.