JUDGMENT
V.K. Agarwal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.3.1997 in Guardians and Wards Case No. 3/95 by I Addl. District Judge, Shahdol, whereby the petitioner/appellant’s application under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, has been dismissed.
2. Undisputably, the petitioner/appellant is the father of minor girls Meena and Bhama. The respondent lived with the appellant as his wife and Meena and Bhama were born out of the same wedlock. It is also not in dispute that the parties are living separately and the respondent/wife after leaving the house of the appellant has started residing with her mother for the last about 10 years prior to the filing of the petition. Undisputably, in a proceeding under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner/appellant has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month for his minor daughters who are presently in custody of his wife-the respondent, prior to the filing of the petition.
3. The petitioner/appellant filed this application for custody and guardianship of the minor daughters mainly on the ground that the respondent-his wife is living with his mother while the latter has married a person of another caste. This would cause difficulty in the marriage of minors. It has also been averred by the appellant/petitioner that the respondent is not properly looking after and educating the minor daughters.
4. The petition as above was resisted by the respondent-wife. She averred that the appellant manhandled her and forcibly turned her out from his home. As a result, the respondent was forced to live, with her mother alongwith the minor daughters. The minor daughters are receiving proper education. It was further averred by the respondent that in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. instituted by her, she has obtained an order for maintenance of the minors, against the appellant. The daughters are living from their childhood with the respondent and are being properly looked after. The respondent averred that the appellant has also kept a concubine. It has also been averred that the appellant/petitioner has filed this application in order to avoid his liability to pay the maintenance to the minors, granted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
5. The only evidence led by the parties was their own statements. It would appear from the statement of appellant/petitioner Bablu that the respondent-his wife left the matrimonial home for the last about 7-8 years. It has also been stated by him that the mother of the respondent is living as the wife of Hukum Singh for the last about 20 years. He has, however, admitted that the above state of affairs existed even prior to the marriage of petitioner/appellant with the respondent Munnibai. He had also admitted that he has not taken care and has not visited the minors since last about 8 years. The appellant also admits in his statement that maintenance has been granted in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. launched by the respondent/wife, and whereafter he had filed the present petition seeking guardianship of the minors.
6. The above statement of the appellant/petitioner would clearly indicate that he has been totally and grossly negligent in taking care of minor daughters, whose custody he is praying, by the present petition. Obvious reason for making such a prayer is that an order granting maintenance against him has been passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Had the appellant been concerned about the welfare of the minors, he would have taken care of them earlier. However, his admission that he did not visit his minor daughters clearly indicates his total lack of concern for his minor daughters.
7. The minors are living from their childhood with their mother-the respondent. It also appears from the statement of respondent that the minors are receiving education and are being looked after properly by her. The respondent/wife is forced to live with her mother on account of the appellant having turned her out from his house. It does not appear that the respondent living with her mother, would adversely affect the prospects of marriage of the minors.
8. In the circumstances, the welfare of minor daughters appears to be that they are permitted to continue in the custody of their mother-the respondent. In any case, the appellant has failed to make out a cause showing that the welfare of minors would be better served if they are given in his custody. Obviously, therefore, the dismissal of his application under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, by the learned Trial Court was wholly justified. No interference in the said order is called for.
9. This appeal, therefore, has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.