[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
An Appeal Under Section 47(A) Of The ... vs Raghunandan Palei on 30 March, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
GUAP No.1 of 2019
An appeal under Section 47(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890.
Lalit Kumar Ghana .... Appellants
and others
Versus
Raghunandan Palei
and another .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in the case :
For Appellants: Mr. B.S. Panigrahi, Advocate
For Respondents:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 30th March, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHR SAHOO:
1. The learned counsel for the appellants is heard at some
length.
Earlier the matter was heard on 09.03.2026.
2. The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
06.09.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Keonjhar in Misc. Civil Application (GUA) No.38/2013. By the
said order, the application filed by the maternal grandparents
of the minor child who is son of the opposite party no.1 before
the learned Judge, Family Court seeking custody of the minor
child born on 23.12.2012 was allowed.
3. The mother of the minor child unfortunately died
unnaturally on 04.08.2013. The respondents before the
learned Judge, Family Court 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the father of the
minor child, father's father and mother i.e. paternal
grandparents of the minor child were convicted by the learned
Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.67 of 2014 arising
out of G.R. Case No.1013 of 2013 of learned SDJM, Keonjhar
for committing offices under Sections 498(A)/304(B)/34 of IPC
read with Section 4 of DP Act.
4. The learned Judge, Family Court considered the
provisions contained in the Sections 6 and 13 of Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The learned Judge,
Family Court also considered the welfare of child and at
paragraph-9 of the order observed thus:
"9. Therefore, analyzing the provision in both the
Acts it is crystal clear that so far as the custody of
the minor child, the paramount consideration is the
'welfare of the minor' and not rights of the parents
or relatives under the statutes which are in force.
This apart, in the Article-518 of Hindu Mulla Law, it
is also reflected that the Court may appoint a
maternal relation in preference to a paternal
relation, or it may even appoint a stranger, if the
welfare of the minor requires it. This is
substantiated through decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi Vs. Pradip
Kumar Karunashankar Joshi (1992) 3 SCC 573
where custody of two minor children were given to
maternal uncle and not with the father. In the
decision between Shyamrao Maroti Karwate Vrs.
Deepak Kisan rao Takar reported in 111 (2011)
CLT 126 (SC) it is held by Apex Court that
'Paramount consideration is of minor's welfare and
not rights of parents or relatives for an order for
guardianship."
5. All the three respondents before the learned Family
Judge upon being convicted were awarded sentence of life
imprisonment. During pendency of the application, the
respondent no.1-father was in custody, his parents i.e. the
grandparents of the minor were on bail.
The learned trial court has considered that the
maternal grandfather aged about 51 years of the minor is a
lecturer in Jashipur College and his wife i.e. the maternal
grandmother aged about 45 years is a home maker.
The learned Judge, Family Court has further
considered in detail the income of the maternal grandparents
compared to the father as well as the paternal grandparents.
The petition was favoured and custody was granted to the
maternal grandparents.
6. This Court does not find any error apparent in the
order impugned. The conclusions have been arrived at after
analyzing the evidence on record as well as considering the
provisions of law also the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding welfare of the child.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants files
memo of date which indicates the following:
"The appellants in the aforementioned case
have challenged the order dtd.06.09.2018 passed
by the learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar in
Misc. Civil Appl. (GUA) No.38/2013 in allowing the
application and giving custody of the minor son of
Appellant no.1 to the Respondents/the maternal
grandparents.
In the meantime, the child has attained the
age of 14 years and is going to be major after four
years. Hence the appellants instead of pursuing
the present appeal wants to pursue their remedy
for visiting right as prayed in IA No.5/2023 before
the learned lower court. Accordingly the
appellants pray for withdrawal of the appeal with
the aforesaid liberty."(sic)
The memo is taken on record. Scanned copy be
updated.
8. The appeal is disposed of.
9. The appellants shall have liberty to seek remedy under
the provisions of law as would be available to them for
visitation and contact rights with the child which shall be
considered in it's own merit.
Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 30th March, 2026/Jyostna
