Matching Fragments
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.
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
