Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 4 to 7 on the other hand has contended that petitioner did not take care of his wife when she was diagnosed with cancer and has in fact left her at the mercy of her parents and brothers. It is submitted that due to ill-treatment by petitioner of his wife, a first information report was also lodged against him under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and, therefore, interest of the minor would not be served in case custody is handed over to petitioner. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Naik Misra and another v.

17. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for answering opposite parties is concerned, a perusal of the same in Ram Naik Misra(supra) indicates that the court refused to grant custody of minor children to the father on the ground that the minors therein who were aged about 15 years and 13 years categorically stated before the court that they did not want to live with their father. Even in the said judgment, it has been held that it is the settled position of law that the father is the natural guardian of minor children and, therefore, he has preferential rights to custody of a minor. As is evident, the facts and circumstances of aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable in the present case.