- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shrimati Maya Devi And Another v. Amolak Ram .
Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal from an order of the Guardian Judge, Jullundur, which directed Maya Devi (the mother) and Ram Lal to restore custody of two minors to their father, Amolak Ram. Proceedings under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act were initiated in March 1954 by Amolak Ram on the ground that his wife Maya Devi had become unchaste and was living with Ram Lal, and that it was therefore undesirable for the minors to remain with them.
At the time of the application, the minors and Maya Devi were living in Ludhiana, while the petition was filed in the Court of the Guardian Judge, Jullundur. The respondents (Maya Devi and Ram Lal) raised a preliminary objection to jurisdiction of the Jullundur Court because the minors were ordinarily residing in Ludhiana. That objection was overruled by the Guardian Court, evidence was led on the merits, and the Guardian Court found that Amolak Ram was the minors' father and, as their natural guardian, entitled to custody. Maya Devi and Ram Lal appealed that decision to the present Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Jullundur Guardian Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act when the minors were ordinarily residing in Ludhiana.
- Whether, on the facts, the minors "ordinarily reside" in Jullundur or Ludhiana (jurisdiction as a question of fact).
- Whether, notwithstanding any natural-guardian right of the father, the welfare of the minors required that custody remain with their mother (Maya Devi) and Ram Lal.
- Whether the mother's alleged immoral relationship with Ram Lal disqualifies her as a proper custodian of the minors.
- Whether the appeal should be refused or the trial validated despite any jurisdictional defect on the ground that the appellants were not prejudiced (invoking procedural provisions such as section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' (Maya Devi and Ram Lal) Arguments
- The Jullundur Court had no jurisdiction to hear Amolak Ram's petition because the minors were ordinarily residing in Ludhiana.
- At trial they later advanced a plea that the minors were actually the children of Ram Lal (i.e., challenging parentage) — advanced as a substantive contention in the proceedings below.
- They produced municipal birth-register entries and witness testimony indicating the minors were born and had been living in Ludhiana.
Respondent's / Applicant's (Amolak Ram) Arguments
- Amolak Ram asserted jurisdiction of the Jullundur Court on the basis that he (the applicant) was living in Jullundur and therefore the minors should be deemed to be in his constructive custody.
- He maintained that he was the natural guardian and father of the minors and thereby entitled to custody, relying on his parental rights.
- He alleged that his wife Maya Devi had been unchaste and was living with Ram Lal, and that such moral conduct made her unfit for custody.
- He asserted that the minors were born in his (maternal grandfather's) house within the jurisdiction of Jullundur.
- Counsel for Amolak Ram (Shri Som Datta Bahri) argued that even if a jurisdictional defect existed, the appellants were not prejudiced by the trial in Jullundur and invoked section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (to contend that the appeal should not be accepted on the jurisdiction ground).
- It was also argued (on the father's behalf) in reply that Maya Devi had left Amolak Ram because he was impotent and that the minors might be the children of Ram Lal — an argument as to parentage raised in the proceedings but not determined in this appeal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mt. Lalita Twaif v. Paramatama Prasad, A.I.R. 1940 All. 329 | Authority that when the mother of minors is living an immoral life she should not be given custody of the children (i.e., maternal immorality may discredit the mother's claim to custody). | The Court acknowledged the authority but declined to treat the principle as an inflexible rule of law; it held such matters should be decided on practical and humanitarian grounds rather than in a sanctimonious or rigid manner. |
| Mrs. Winifred McQullan v. Mrs. Winifred Chapman, 57 I.C. 13 | An instance where custody of a young girl was given to a person living with Mr. Chapman though not married to him (showing flexibility in awarding custody despite irregular relationship). | The Court relied on this precedent to show that an irregular relationship does not automatically disqualify the mother from custody where welfare considerations point otherwise. |
| Jwala Prasad Saha v. Bachu Lal Gupta, A.I.R. 1942 Cal. 215 | Reported as an instance supporting the Court's conclusion that custody could remain with the mother in similar circumstances. | The Court cited this as an example consistent with its view that the welfare of the child can justify keeping custody with the mother despite irregular relationship. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in two principal strands: (A) jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, and (B) the welfare of the minors.
A. Jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act
- The Court examined section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and the Act's definition of "Court" (section 4(5)), observing that an application under section 25 must be made to a Court which has jurisdiction to appoint or declare a guardian. Section 9 of the Act vests that jurisdiction in the Court of the place where the minor ordinarily resides.
- Applying those provisions, the Court held that an application under section 25 lies only to a Court of the place where the minor ordinarily resides. The Court rejected the proposition that a minor "ordinarily resides" where the guardian happens to live if the minor is not actually in that guardian's custody.
- The question of the minors' ordinary residence was treated as one of fact. The Court analyzed the evidence: Maya Devi and witnesses stated the minors were born in Ludhiana and had lived there with their mother; municipal birth-register entries were produced in support; Amolak Ram produced no comparable documentary evidence and had not shown the minors ever resided with him. The Court therefore found that the minors ordinarily resided in Ludhiana and that the Jullundur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the section 25 petition.
B. Welfare of the Minors (substantive custody question)
- Although jurisdiction was defective, the Court proceeded to decide the issue of the children's welfare, which ultimately determined the appeal. The Court emphasized that an order under section 25 is to be made to protect the minor's welfare.
- Factual findings relevant to welfare: the children were very young (about 6 and 4 at the time of the opinion), had apparently lived only with their mother and Ram Lal, and there was no suggestion in the evidence that they were neglected, unhappy, or improperly clothed or educated. Amolak Ram had shown little interest in the children over several years and had only recently sought custody; his actions suggested to the Court an ulterior motive (to compel Maya Devi to return to him) rather than genuine concern for the children's welfare. There was no evidence that Amolak Ram or his mother were able to look after the children, or that his mother was willing to care for them (she had never seen them).
- On the mother's alleged immoral relationship: the Court accepted that Maya Devi was living with Ram Lal though not married to him and that the relationship was irregular. The Court reviewed precedent that maternal immorality may discredit a custody claim but refused to apply such a rule rigidly. Relying on practical and humanitarian considerations and precedents where custody had been given despite irregular relationships, the Court concluded that the irregularity did not, on the facts, make Maya Devi unfit. There was no evidence of promiscuity or an atmosphere likely to harm the children; the children were too young to be affected socially or morally by their mother's marital status, and they appeared to have affection and proper care from Maya Devi and Ram Lal.
- The Court weighed the harm of removing the children from familiar surroundings and from the mother and Ram Lal against any advantage of placing them with Amolak Ram. It found removal to unfamiliar surroundings, under the care of strangers, would not be conducive to their welfare at this stage.
- Consequently, even accepting that Amolak Ram had a prima facie natural-guardian claim, the Court held that such a right is not indefeasible where its exercise would be contrary to the minors' welfare. On the facts, immediate custody with the father would not be in the children's best interests.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court allowed the appeal by Maya Devi and Ram Lal and set aside the custody order in favor of Amolak Ram. Specifically, the Court dismissed Amolak Ram's application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
Direct consequences and practical implications:
- The custody of the two minors will remain, for the time being, with their mother Maya Devi (and with Ram Lal in her household), because that outcome was held to be for the welfare of the minors.
- The Court found that the Jullundur Guardian Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the original petition under section 25, since the minors ordinarily resided in Ludhiana.
- Amolak Ram is permitted to make a fresh application for custody after some years if he so advises; the Court indicated the matter can be re-opened and decided according to law and the circumstances existing at that later time.
- There will be no order as to costs.
The opinion did not purport to lay down a rigid new legal rule excluding a mother from custody where she lives in an irregular relationship; rather, it applied established precedent flexibly and based the outcome on the practical welfare of the children in the particular factual matrix. The Court indicated that maternal immorality may be a factor in determining custody but is not an absolute disqualification where welfare points the other way.
Disposition: Appeal allowed; Amolak Ram's application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act dismissed. No costs.
Bishan Narain, J.:— This is an appeal from the order of the Guardian Judge, Jullundur, ordering Maya Devi, mother of the two minors, and Ram Lal to restore the minors custody to their father Amolak Ram. The present proceedings under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act were started in March 1954 by Amolak Ram on the ground that his wife Maya Devi had become unchaste and was living with Ram Lal and therefore it was not desirable that his minor daughter and his minor son should be allowed to live with them. Admittedly in March Ram Lal and Maya Devi were living in Ludhiana along with the miners while the present application was made in the Court of the Gaurdian Judge, Jullundur. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that as the minors were ordinarily residing in Ludhiana the Jullundur Court had no jurisdiction to hear this petition. This objection was over ruled and then the evidence was led by the parties on merits. Some time after the respondents raised a new plea to the effect that the minors were not the children of Amolak Ram but that they were the children of Ram Lal and that for this reason also Amolak Ram was not a fit person for their custody. The Guardian Court came to the conclusion that Amolak Ram is the minors father and that as their natural guardian he is entitled to their custody, particularly when their mother is openly leading an immoral life by living with Ram Lal who is not her husband. Maya Devi and Ram Lal are dissatisfied with this decision and have filed the present appeal in this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants first urged that the Jullundur Court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition. The Guardian Judge held in favour of his jurisdiction on the ground that as the applicant was living in Jullundur the minors must be deemed to be in his constructive custody. Now, section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act lays down that the Court may order the custody of the wards to their guardian and may cause the minors to be arrested for this purpose. Section 4(5) of the Act defines the “Court” as one having jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Act for an order appointing or declaring a guardian. Therefore an application under section 25 of the Act should be made to a Court which has jurisdiction to appoint and declare a person as guardian.
3. Under section 9 such a jurisdiction vests in the Court of a place where the minor ordinarily resides. Thus an application under section 25 lies only to a Court of a place where the minor ordinarily resides. It appears to me that in this view of the matter it cannot be said that a minor ordinarily resides where his guardian lives when the minor is not in the custody of that guardian. Where a minor ordinarily resides is a question of fact to be decided on the circumstance of each case. In the present case the minors are now about 6 and 4 years old and at the time of the application they were about 4 and 2 years old. The case of Amolak Ram is that they were born in the house of their maternal grandfather which is within the jurisdiction of Jullundur. It is not his case that the minors ever resided with him. Maya Devi, Ram Lal and Hans Raj brother of Maya Devi have stated that the minors were born in Ludhiana in the house of Ram Lal and have been living there with their mother ever since. Hans Raj denies that his father or his mother ever lived in village Malloopota where Amolak Ram alleges the minors were born. May Devi has produced entries from municipal birth registers showing that a girl and a boy of about the same age as the present minor were born to Ram Lal in Ludhiana. Amolak Ram has not produced any such entries, nor any independent or reliable evidence to show that they were born in village Malloopota or within the jurisdiction of Jullundur Court. Amolak Ram has admitted that he had filed a complaint against Maya Devi etc., sometime in 1950 under section 498, Indian Penal Code, and that another complaint was filed under the same section sometime in 1951. He had also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in October 1952 and had obtained an ex parte decree on the 26th of March 1953. It is not his case that Maya Devi ever complied with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights that he had obtained against her. It may be stated here that the minor girl was born in 1951 and the boy was born in 1952. It is clear from all this evidence and from the evidence of Maya Devi and her witnesses that she had been living in Ludhiana with Ram Lal since a considerable time without any intention to ever reside in Jullundur or with Amolak, Ram. The minors have been admittedly living with her all along. It must therefore be held that the minors ordinarily reside in Ludhiana and cannot be held to be so residing in Jullundur. In view of this finding I hold that Jullundur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition under section 25 of the Act.
4. Shri Som Datta Bahri has, however, urged that the appeal should not be accepted on the ground that Jullundur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and has invited my attention to section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has urged that the appellants were not prejudiced by the trial in Jullundur and that there is no suggestion even that they were so prejudiced. It is true that by virtue of section 141, Civil Procedure Code, the Guardian Court should follow the procedure laid down in the Code as far as possible. Taking into consideration, however, the nature of the proceedings in the guardianship Court and the jurisdiction given to the Guardian Court over the minors and necessity of its watching over minors' welfare it appears to me doubtful if the provisions of section 21 should be strictly applied to proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. It is, however, not necessary to decide this matter finally as the appeal succeeds on another ground.
5. It was argued before me that the minors were, in fact, the children of Ram Lal as Maya Devi had left Amolak Ram within three days of her marriage on finding that Amolak Ram was impotent. I do not consider it necessary to decide this question in these summary proceedings.
6. This brings me to the question of welfare of the minors. Under section 25 of the Act an order for custody is to be made to protect the minor's welfare. Now the children are of tender age, now being 6 years and) 4 years old. Amolak Ram has nowhere stated the these children ever lived with him. It is clear from the evidence on the record that, they have never lived anywhere but with their mother and Ram Lal. There is no suggestion that they are not happy with them or that they are not being looked after properly. Nor is there any suggestion that the arrangement of minor's education, lodging or clothing by Maya Devi is not adequate or is not in accordance with the minor's status or position in the society to which Amolak Ram belongs. Amolak Ram never took any interest in these children for four years but suddenly now has become anxious to get their custody. Taking into consideration the complaints that he has been filing against Maya Devi and others, it appears to tee that the application now made by him is not a bona fide application and has been made with the ulterior object of getting Maya Devi to return to him and it has not been made in the interest of the children. Moreover, there is no evidence that Amolak Ram is in a position to look after them. In rebuttal he has stated that his mother is living with him, but there is no evidence that she is willing or able to look after these children whom she had never seen before. Amolak Ram has based his petition on the sole ground that as a natural guardian he is entitled to their custody but, in my opinion he has no such indefeasible right in law if the exercise of such a right is not in the minors' welfare. In the present case it is clear to me that it is not in the interest of the minors that their custody should be given to Amolak Ram.
7. It was, however, strenuously argued by Shri Som Dalta Bahri, the learned counsel for Amolak Ram, that Maya Devi is openly living in adultery with Ram Lal and therefore she is not a fit and proper person to have their custody. In this case it is admitted that Maya Devi has a son who was at the time of the application about two months old and he is not claimed by Amolak Ram as his son. Maya Devi herself has stated that all her three children are from Ram Lal. She has admitted that she is not married to Ram Lal and that she was married to Amolak Ram with whom she lived only for three days. Therefore, it must be held that Maya Devi is living with Ram Lal, though not married to him. It has often been held that when the mother of the minors is living an immoral life then she should not be given the custody of children vide Mt. Lalita Twaif v. Paramatama Prasad . A.I.R 1940 All. 329.. I am however, unable to subscribe to the view that this is a matter of law and that it must be observed rigidly. This matter should be decided on practical and humanitarian and not sanctimonious grounds. In Mrs. Winifred McQullan v. Mrs. Winfred Chapman . 57 I.C 13., custody of a young girl was given to a person who was living with Mr. Chapman though not married to him. If the mother of a minor is living an immoral life then to that extent it may be considered to her diseredit but there may be circumstances like the present one in which in spite of this infirmity it may be for the welfare of the minor to give custody to the real mother. Maya Devi has been living with Ram Lal since some considerable time and according to her since the death of Ram Lal's wife on the 3rd of February 1950. This relationship is admittedly irregular but they are living happily in the same house as man and wife. It is not the case of Amolak Ram, nor is there any evidence that Maya Devi has been leading an irregular life in the sense that she is leading a promiscuously unchaste life. The atmosphere in Ram Lal's house is not alleged to be such as to have bad in once on these minor children. Just now the children are too young to be aware of the fact, that their mother is not legally wedded to Ram Lal. They must be taking Ram Lal to be their father. Their living with them cannot possibly have any adverse effect of their character at this age of their life. Maya Devi and Ram Lal have affection for these children and it does not appear to me right to deprive these children of their affection. The minors are still very young and their removal to strange, and unfamiliar surroundings cannot possibly be considered to be conducive to their welfare. They have been brought up under particular surroundings and their removal from these surroundings if not likely to make them happier than they are now. It appears to me improper to compel them at this tender age to live with Amolak Ram and his mother whom they must necessarily regard as strangers. At least for some years these children should be allowed to live with their mother and Ram Lal and should not be made over to Amolak Ram and his mother who have never shown any interest in their well-being and welfare.
8. For all these reasons I am of the opinion that for the time being the custody of the minors should remain with Maya Devi. Such an order is justified if it is for the welfare of the minors and in my opinion it is so. One such instance is reported in Jwala Prasad Saha v. Bachu Lal Gupta . A.I.R 1942 Cal. 215.. Amolak Ram may, if so advised, apply again for custody of these children after some years and then the matter can again be decided in accordance with law and according to circumstances then existing.
9. I therefore accept this appeal and dismiss Amolak Ram's application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. There will be no order as to costs.
10. Appeal allowed.
Alert