Manipur High Court
Mrs. Suhana Begum vs Mrs. Bariya Bibi on 9 June, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar, Mv Muralidaran
KABORA Digitally signed
by Item No. 8
MBAM KABORAMBAM
SANDEE SANDEEP SINGH
P SINGH
Date: 2022.06.09
16:27:50 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Mat. App. No. 4 of 2019
Mrs. Suhana Begum, aged about 32 years, W/o late Md. Ayub Khan,
a resident of Yairipok Changamdabi Makha Leikai, P.O. Yairipok,
P.S. Andro, Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin- 795149
Appellant
-Versus-
1. Mrs. Bariya Bibi, aged about 55 years, W/o Md. Salauddin, a
resident of Yairipok Ningthounai, P.O. Yairipok, P.S. Andro,
Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin - 795149.
2. Md. Salauddin, aged about 67 years, S/o Haji Syed Ahmed, a
resident of Yairipok Ningthounai, P.O. Yairipok, P.S. Andro,
Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin - 794149.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the appellant : Mr. M. Rakesh, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate
Date of Order : 09.06.2022
ORDER (ORAL)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] The appellant in this appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is respondent No. 1 in Mat. (Guardians & Wards) Case No. 4 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Imphal East. The said case was filed by her mother-in-law, respondent No. 1 herein, seeking to be appointed as the guardian of her minor grandson, Mk. Aqeel Shah, under Section 7 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890. Her plea was accepted, vide Order dated 23.10.2017 passed by the Family Court. Aggrieved thereby, the child's stepmother is in appeal.
Mat. App. No. 4 of 2019 Page 1 [2] Heard Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel for the appellant; and
Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents. [3] The father of the minor child, viz., Md. Ayub Khan, a constable in the Manipur Police, died on 15.12.2016. The child's mother, viz., Mrs. Rumsa @ Mina, had divorced her husband in the year 2014 and got remarried. It is the case of respondent No. 1 herein, the paternal grandmother, that she looked after the child since the day his mother divorced his father. Admittedly, the appellant herein is the second wife of Md. Ayub Khan and has a child of her own. She is, thus, the stepmother of Mk. Aqeel Shah, who was born on 17.10.2013. He remained with his paternal grandmother for most of his life and had no exposure to his stepmother. [4] Significantly, the Court examined not only the paternal grandparents of the child but also his natural mother, viz., Mrs. Rumsa @ Mina, as statutorily required. She stated that she had no objection to the paternal grandmother being made the legal guardian of her son. That apart, the Family Court took note of the agreement dated 21.01.2017 (Ext. A/9) entered into by the paternal grandmother and the stepmother, viz., the appellant herein, whereby it was decided that the appellant would receive compassionate appointment to a suitable post under the die-in-harness scheme, as Md. Ayub Khan died while in service. Further, they also agreed that the ex gratia amount of ₹. 20,00,000/- would be shared by the two children of late Md. Ayub Khan. It was in these circumstances that the Family Court appointed the paternal grandmother as the child's guardian, subject to conditions. The Family Court further directed that any amount received from the Government on behalf of the child would be placed in a bank account to be maintained in his name and the same should be spent only for his welfare.
Mat. App. No. 4 of 2019 Page 2 [5] Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel, would contend that the appellant
was not put on notice, by service of summons upon her, prior to the passing of the order by the Family Court. This is the only ground taken by her in the present appeal. Learned counsel was asked to ascertain as to why the appellant, having a child of her own, wants to be appointed as the guardian of her minor stepson. Mr. M. Rakesh, learned counsel, obtained instructions and states that the appellant promised her husband that she would look after her stepson as her own son and that is the reason why she wishes to be involved in his welfare. [6] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel, would fairly state that the paternal grandmother, respondent No. 1 herein, would have no objection to the appellant visiting her minor stepson and contributing to his welfare. [7] Given the aforestated facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the paternal grandmother would be a more logical choice to be appointed as the guardian of the minor child as opposed to his stepmother, who has a child of her own. If the appellant is really interested in keeping her promise to her late husband and wishes to contribute to the future and welfare of her stepson, it would always be open to her to do so while the child remains in the custody of his paternal grandparents. Further, as already noted supra, the minor child has had no exposure whatsoever to the stepmother and she would practically be a complete stranger to him. It would therefore not be in his welfare and interest to remove him from the custody of his known grandparents and place him in custody of his stepmother, who is totally unknown to him.
[8] We, therefore, find no real grounds to interfere with the order under appeal though, technically, the appellant may have a point in stating that the Family Mat. App. No. 4 of 2019 Page 3 Court should have followed the due procedure by ensuring that she was properly served before proceeding to dispose of the matter on merits. Except for this technical ground, the appellant has nothing to offer and we are not persuaded to interfere with the order under appeal on that basis. The welfare and interest of the child would be of paramount importance to this Court and in so far as the same are concerned, no appellate interference is warranted.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed, subject to the observations made hereinabove with regard to the appellant being at liberty to contribute to the future welfare of her stepson, if she so pleases.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep Mat. App. No. 4 of 2019 Page 4