# Latoori Singh v. Sushila Devi

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 638
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-31
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 133 of 2018
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/latoori-singh-v-sushila-devi-44884
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
- Section 25 - Guardianship & custody of
minor - consideration - paramount interest
of minor is the primary criteria for deciding
custody and guardianship of a minor.

Held:- It is well crystallized that paramount
interest of minor is the primary criteria for
deciding custody and guardianship of a minor.
A minor who is below five years of age, shall
ordinarily be allowed to stay with his mother.
Similarly, in case of minor girls, it has been
the consistent view that their custody should
remain with the mother, till they attain the
age
of
majority.
(Para
13)
3 All. Latoori Singh Vs. Sushila Devi
639
B. Guardianship & custody of minor -
Practice and Procedure - Court while
deciding the issue regarding appointment
of guardian of minor and also custody of
minor must have a dialogue/conversation
with the minor and then assess & return a
finding regarding paramount interest of
child. (Para 16)

Held:- Court below was under legal obligation
to decide the status of parties, the intention of
minor
in
residing
with
his
mother
or
grandfather and then return a finding, as to in
whose custody the paramount interest of
minor child would be best protected. Court
below having failed to undertake the aforesaid
exercise; jurisdiction exercised not accordance
with law.

First Appeal Allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1.Mritunjay Vs Hari Shankar Dixit (First Appeal
Defective No. 138 of 2019 decided on
8.7.2019).

## Text

638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rate of Rs. 12,000/-. The amount of
maintenance awarded under section 125
Cr.P.C. i.e. Rs. 2,000/- shall be adjusted
in aforesaid amount. Plaintiff is directed
to pay aforesaid amount to appellant from
date of application till 31.8.2019. Since
we have already modified the order dated
24.11.2008, there is no necessity to
decide validity of order dated 6.2.2009,
whereby
review
petition
filed
by
appellant, seeking review of earlier order
dated 24.11.2008 has been rejected.

43. First Appeal No. 40 of 2011
(Prachi Vs. Shailendra Kumar) is hereby
allowed. Judgement dated 4.12.2010 and
decree dated 22.12.2010 passed by Vijai
Kumar Khatri, Principal Judge, Family
Court, Allahabad in Matrimonial Case
No. 37 of 2002 (Shailendra Kumar Vs.
Prachi) is hereby set aside and aforesaid
marriage petition is dismissed.

44. First Appeal No. 107 of 2016
(Shailendra Kumar Vs. Prachi) is also
dismissed.

45. First Appeal No. 157 of 2016
(Dr. Prachi Sharma Vs. Dr. Shailendra
Kumar) is partly allowed and judgement
and order dated 24.11.2008, passed by
Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad
is modified and order dated 6.2.2009,
dismissing review of the appellant, is
hereby set aside and it is provided that the
appellant Dr. Prachi Sharma is entitled to
monthly maintenance of Rs. 12,000/-. The
amount of maintenance awarded under
section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. Rs. 2,000/- shall
be adjusted in the aforesaid monthly
maintenance granted by this Court under
section 24 of Act 1955. Aforesaid
maintenance shall be payable from the
date of application till 31st August, 2019.
The entire amount, as directed, shall be
paid directly to the appellant by husband
Dr. Shailendra Sharma or deposited in the
Family Court. If amount is deposited by
plaintiff Shailendra Kumar, same shall be
released by Court below without any
further delay. In case of default, it shall be
open to appellant to take execution
proceedings for recovery. It is provided
that cost in all appeals is made easy.
----------

(2019)11ILR A638

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

First Appeal No. 133 of 2018

Latoori Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Sushila Devi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Hari Mohan Srivastava, Sri Neeraj
Srivastava

A. Civil Law-Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
- Section 25 - Guardianship & custody of
minor - consideration - paramount interest
of minor is the primary criteria for deciding
custody and guardianship of a minor.

Held:- It is well crystallized that paramount
interest of minor is the primary criteria for
deciding custody and guardianship of a minor.
A minor who is below five years of age, shall
ordinarily be allowed to stay with his mother.
Similarly, in case of minor girls, it has been
the consistent view that their custody should
remain with the mother, till they attain the
age
of
majority.
(Para
13)
3 All. Latoori Singh Vs. Sushila Devi
639
B. Guardianship & custody of minor -
Practice and Procedure - Court while
deciding the issue regarding appointment
of guardian of minor and also custody of
minor must have a dialogue/conversation
with the minor and then assess & return a
finding regarding paramount interest of
child. (Para 16)

Held:- Court below was under legal obligation
to decide the status of parties, the intention of
minor
in
residing
with
his
mother
or
grandfather and then return a finding, as to in
whose custody the paramount interest of
minor child would be best protected. Court
below having failed to undertake the aforesaid
exercise; jurisdiction exercised not accordance
with law.

First Appeal Allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1.Mritunjay Vs Hari Shankar Dixit (First Appeal
Defective No. 138 of 2019 decided on
8.7.2019).

2. Lekha Vs P. Anil Kumar (2006) 13 SCC 555

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. Present first appeal under section
47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
(hereinafter referred to as "Act 1890") has
been filed by Latoori Singh, challenging
judgement dated 23.1.2018 and decree
dated 5.2.2018, passed by Principal Judge,
Family Court, Kasganj in Suit No. 25 of
2015 (Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Latoori Singh)
under section 25 of Act 1890, whereby and
whereunder,
plaintiff-respondent
Smt.
Sushila Devi has been appointed as
guardian of minor Kuldeep and further
defendant-appellant has been directed to
hand over custody of minor Kuldeep to
plaintiff-respondent Sushila Devi.

2. Brief facts shorn of unnecessary
details giving rise to present first appeal
are that marriage of plaintiff-respondent
was solemnized with Subhash chandra
S/o defendant-appellant Latoori Singh in
accordance
with
Hindu
Rites
and
Customs. From aforesaid wedlock, son
Kuldeep
was
born.
Unfortunately,
Subhash chandra father of minor Kuldeep
died on 7.10.2012. Upon death of
Subhash chandra S/o defendant-appellant
Latoori Singh, custody of minor Kuldeep
was
retained
by
defendant-appellant
whereas, Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of
minor Kuldeep, went to her parental
home. On 27.8.2016, plaintiff-respondent
Sushila Devi filed Suit No. 25 of 2015
(Smt. Sushila Devi Vs, Latoori Singh)
under section 25 of Act, 1890 for
appointment of herself as Guardian of
minor Kuldeep and also for custody of
minor.

3. According to plaint allegations,
marriage of plaintiff-respondent Sushila
Devi was solemnized with Subhash
Chandra in accordance with Hindu Rites
and
Customs.
From
the
aforesaid
wedlock, a son, Kuldeep, was born.
Unfortunately, Subhash Chandra husband
of plaintiff-respondent Sushila Devi died
on 7.10.2012 in an accident. Defendantappellant is allege to have got some
papers signed from plaintiff-respondent as
well as her father and on false pretext that
health of plaintiff-respondent is not
keeping good, retained custody of minor
Kuldeep. Upon regaining health, plaintiffrespondent came to her marital home on
12.8.2015 but was not allowed by her inlaws to enter the house. According to
plaintiff-respondent, it is alleged that
defendant-appellant on the basis of
certain papers which were got signed by
him from plaintiff-respondent and her
father, pleaded that plaintiff-respondent
has no concern with minor as well as
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
property of her late husband. Photo copy
of alleged paper was handed over to
plaintiff-respondent on 12.8.2015. On
basis of the same, defendant-appellant is
alleged to have denied custody of minor
Kuldeep to his natural guardian i.e.
mother, Smt. Sushila Devi, on 20.8.2015.
Accordingly, plaintiff-respondent, Smt.
Sushila Devi, filed Suit No. 25 of 2015
(Smt. Shusheels Devi Vs. Sri Latoori
Singh) for custody of minor Kuldeep and
also for appointment of herself as
Guardian of minor Kuldeep.

4. Suit filed by plaintiff-respondent
was contested by defendant-appellant. He
filed a written statement dated 29.9.2015
(Paper No. 10-a) whereby, not only plaint
allegations were denied but also additional
pleas were raised. According to defendantappellant, allegations made in plaint were
false. Plaintiff-respondent herself went to her
parental home along with her jewellery,
goods and utensils. A panchayat was held in
the presence of Nawab Singh, Pooran Singh,
Swadan Singh, Brijesh Kumar, Prajapalan
Verma
and
Ex-M.L.A.
Ramswaroop
wherein, plaintiff-respondent expressed her
desire to live at her parental home.
Accordingly, plaintiff-respondent was paid a
sum of Rs. 80,000/- cash by defendantappellant as well as entire amount payable
under L.I.C. Policy of deceased Subhas
chandra
i.e.
Rs.
2,05,000/-.
Plaintiffrespondent further agreed for remarriage and
gave custody of minor Kuldeep in his favour.
A memorandum to that effect was prepaed
and noterised on 27.7.2015. It was thus
pleaded
by
defendant-appellant,
that
plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to the
custody of minor Kuldeep nor is she entitled
to be appointed as her guardian.

5. After exchange of pleadings,
parties went to trial. Plaintiff-respondent
Smt. Sushila Devi, in order to prove her
case adduced herself as P.W.1. She also
filed documentary evidence. Defendantappellant, in proof of his defence,
adduced himself as D.W.1 Saudan Singh
as D.W.2 and Nawab Singh as D.W.3.

6. On the basis of pleadings raised
by parties, Court below framed following
issues for determination:

(i) Whether on the basis of conjugal
relationship between plaintiff-respondent
and Subhash Chand, son of defendantappellant, a son Kuldeep was born.

(II)
Whether
plaintiffrespondent/defendant-appellant
have
ignored the child.

(III) The interest of the child is best
protected in the company of plaintiffrespondent of defendant-appellant.

(IV) Relief.

7. Issue no-I was decided in favour
of plaintiff-respondent. It was held by
Court below that from the wedlock of
plaintiff-respondent Smt. Sushila Devi
and Subhash chandra S/o defendantappellant, a son Kuldeep was born. Issue
No. II was decided in favour of plaintiffrespondent and it was held that plaintiffrespondent has not neglected her minor
child Kuldeep. Court below further held
that burden to prove Issue No-II was upon
defendant-appellant, which burden he has
failed to discharge. Issue No. III was
decided holding that interest of minor is
best protected in the company of his
natural
mother
Smt.
Sushila
Devi.
Defence put forward by defendantappellant on the basis of unregistered
agreement dated 27.7.2015 was not
believed by Court below. Further Court
below also observed that defendantappellant has failed to prove that as per
3 All. Latoori Singh Vs. Sushila Devi
641
her wish, plaintiff-respondent has re-married.
Since plaintiff-respondent is natural guaridan
of minor Kuldeep, as such, she is entitled to
custody of minor Kuldeep and further liable
to be appointed as his guardian. In respect of
Issue No. IV, Court below held that plaintiffrespondent is entitled to relief prayed for, as
such, she is liable to be appointed as
guardian of minor and also the custody of
minor Kuldeep. Accordingly, suit filed by
plaintiff-respondent
was
decreed
vide
judgement dated 23.1.2018 and decree dated
5.2.2018. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid
judgement and decree, passed by Court
below,
defendant-appellant
has
now
approached this Court by means of present
first appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. Ram Sanehi
Yadav, learned counsel for defendantappellant and Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava,
learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent.

9. Learned counsel for defendantappellant
while
assailing
impugned
judgement and decree passed by Court
below, has urged, that though mother is
natural guardian of minor but natural
guardian can be denied custody and
guardianship of minor for strong and
compelling reasons. Court below while
passing impugned judgement and decree
has not adverted itself to the facts and
circumstances of the case and therefore,
exercised its jurisdiction in a mechanical
manner, which is unsustainable in law. He
further submits that Court below has not
weighed conditions of parties, as such,
Court below has not returned a finding
with regard to the protection of interest of
minor in the company of plaintiffrespondent or defendant-appellant. Court
below has further not considered the issue
as to whether mother has remarried or
not.

10. Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava,
learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent,
has supported impugned judgement and
decree on the basis of findings recorded
therein. Learned counsel for plaintiffrespondent further submits that since
minor Kuldeep is of tender age, Court
below has not committed any illegality in
appointing
mother
i.e.
plaintiffrespondent who is also a natural guardian
as the guardian, of minor and further
directing defendant-appellant to hand
over custody of minor to plaintiffrespondent. There does not exist any such
reason or circumstance on the basis of
which natural guardian could be deprived
the guardianship and custody of minor
Kuldeep.

11.

Upon
consideration
of
submissions raised by counsel for parties,
issue which arises for determination
before this Court is:- "Whether Court
below was right in appointing plaintiffrespondent as guardian of minor Kuldeep
and further handing over of possession of
minor in favour of plaintiff-respondent".

12. Before proceeding to consider
rival submissions, it is necessary to
reproduce sections 25 and 47 of Act 1890:

"25. Title of guardian to
custody of ward.--(1) If a ward leaves or
is removed from the custody of a guardian
of his person, the Court, if it is of opinion
that it will be for the welfare of the ward
to return to the custody of his guardian,
may make an order for his return and for
the purpose of enforcing the order may
cause the ward to be arrested and to be
delivered into the custody of the guardian.

(2) For the purpose of arresting
the ward, the Court may exercise the
power conferred on a Magistrate of the
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
first class by section 100 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).

(3) The residence of a ward
against the will of his guardian with a
person who is not his guardian does not
of itself terminate the guardianship.

47.
Orders
appealable.--An
appeal shall lie to the High Court from an
order made by a 1[***] Court,--

(a) under section 7, appointing
or declaring or refusing to appoint or
declare a guardian; or

(b) under section 9, sub-section
(3), returning an application; or

(c) under section 25, making or
refusing to make an order for the return of
a ward to the custody of his guardian; or

(d) under section 26, refusing
leave for the removal of a ward from the
limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or
imposing conditions with respect thereto;
or

(e) under section 28 or section
29, refusing permission to a guardian to
do an act referred to in the section; or

(f) under section 32, defining,
restricting or extending the powers of a
guardian; or

(g) under section 39, removing
a guardian; or

(h) under section 40, refusing to
discharge a guardian; or

(i) under section 43, regulating
the conduct or proceedings of a guardian
or settling a matter in difference between
joint guardians or enforcing the order; or

(j) under section 44 or section
45, imposing a penalty."

13. From the perusal of Section 25
of Act 1890 it is apparent that there are no
directions contained in the section itself in
accordance with which application for
guardianship
and
custody
shall
be
decided. However, as law has developed
on the subject concerned, it is well
crystallized that paramount interest of
minor is the primary criteria for deciding
custody and guardianship of a minor.
Apart from above, it is now further
established that a minor who is below five
years of age, shall ordinarily be allowed
to stay with mother. Similarly in case of
minor girls, it has been the consistent
view that their custody should remain
with mother till they attain age of
majority. It shall be useful to refer to a
Division Bench judgement of this Court
in First Appeal Defective No. 138 of 2019
(Mritunjay Vs. Hari Shankar Dixit)
decided on 8.7.2019. In paragraphs 7, 8,
9, 10 and 11 Court has said as under:

"7.
While
determining
the
question of custody of a minor child, the
first and the paramount consideration is
the welfare and interest of the child and
not the rights of the parents under a
statute.

8. In Mausami Moitra Ganguli v.
Jayant Ganguli (2008) 7 SCC 673, it has
been held that the principles of law in
relation to the custody of a minor child are
well settled. While determining the question
as to which parent the care and control of a
child should be committed, the first and the
paramount consideration is the welfare and
interest of the child and not the rights of the
parents under a statute.

9. In the above case, a passage
from Halsbury's Laws of England (4th
Edn., Vol. 13) was reproduced which
reads as under:

"809. Principles as to custody
and upbringing of minors.- Where in any
3 All. Latoori Singh Vs. Sushila Devi
643
proceedings before any court, the custody
or upbringing of a minor is in question,
the court, in deciding that question, must
regard the welfare of the minor as the first
and paramount consideration, and must
not take into consideration whether from
any other point of view the claim of the
father in respect of such custody or
upbringing is superior to that of the
mother, or the claim of the mother is
superior to that of the father. In relation
to the custody or upbringing of a minor, a
mother has the same rights and authority
as the law allows to a father, and the
rights and authority of mother and father
are equal and are exercisable by either
without the other."

10. Earlier, Apex Court in Rosy
Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973) 1
SCC 840, ruled that the children are not
mere
chattels,
nor
are
they
mere
playthings for their parents. Absolute
right of parents over the destinies and
the lives of their children has, in the
modern
changed
social
conditions,
yielded to the considerations of their
welfare as human beings so that they
may grow up in a normal balanced
manner to be useful members of the
society and the guardian.

11.
Following
the
above
authorities,
in
Santhini
Vs.
Vijaya
Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1 Court
expressed the same view holding as
under:

"It is to be borne in mind that in
a matter relating to the custody of the
child, the welfare of the child is
paramount
and
seminal.
It
is
inconceivable to ignore its importance
and treat it as secondary. The interest of
the child in all circumstances remains
vital and the Court has a very affirmative
role in that regard. Having regard to the
nature of the interest of the child, the role
of the Court is extremely sensitive and it
is expected of the Court to be pro-active
and sensibly objective." (emphasis
added) "

14. Supreme Court in Lekha Vs. P.
Anil Kumar 2006 (13) SCC 555, had
dealt
with
the
issue
regarding
guardianship and custody of minor under
section 25 of Act 1890 and observed as
follows in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 19:

"15. Sk. Moidin v. Kunhadevi
[AIR 1929 Mad 33 (FB)] was a case of a
father, a motor driver, applying for writ of
habeas corpus to get custody of his 7year-aged child. Nobody was available in
his house to look after such child. The
Full Bench held that the Court has to look
to an application under habeas corpus in
the interest of the child as being
paramount. The Court held that prima
facie in the eye of the law, the father is the
natural guardian and custodian of the
person of his child. But it has been the
law for a very long time both in England
and in this country that what a court has
to look to on applications under habeas
corpus is the interest of the child as being
paramount.

16. In Samuel Stephen Richard
v. Stella Richard [AIR 1955 Mad 451 : 56
Cri LJ 1192] the High Court in deciding
the question of custody held as follows:
(AIR p. 452)

"In deciding the question of
custody, the welfare of the minor is the
paramount consideration and the fact that
the father is the natural guardian would
not ''ipso facto' entitle him to custody. The
principal considerations or tests which
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have been laid down under Section 17, in
order to secure this welfare, are equally
applicable in considering the welfare of
the minor under Section 25.

The application of these tests
casts an ''arduous' duty on the court.
Amongst the many and multifarious duties
that a Judge in Chambers performs by far
the most onerous duties are those cast
upon him by the Guardians and Wards
Act. He should place himself in the
position of a wise father and be not tired
of the worries which may be occasioned
to him in selecting a guardian best fitted
to assure the welfare of a minor and
thereafter guide and control the guardian
to ensure the welfare of the ward--a no
mean task but the highest fulfilment of the
dharmasastra of his own country.

It is only an extreme case where
a mother may not have the interest of her
child most dear to her. Since it is the
mother who would have the interest of the
minor most at heart, the tender years of a
child needing the care, protection and
guidance of the most interested person,
the mother has come to be preferred to
others."

17. In Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v.
Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka [(1982) 2
SCC 544 : AIR 1982 SC 1276] this Court
held as under: (SCC p. 565, para 17)

"17. The principles of law in
relation to the custody of a minor appear
to be well established. It is well settled
that any matter concerning a minor, has
to be considered and decided only from
the point of view of the welfare and
interest of the minor. In dealing with a
matter concerning a minor, the Court has
a special responsibility and it is the duty
of the Court to consider the welfare of the
minor and to protect the minor's interest.
In considering the question of custody of
a minor, the Court has to be guided by the
only consideration of the welfare of the
minor."

19. The law permits a person to
have the custody of his minor child. The
father ought to be the guardian of the
person and property of the minor under
ordinary circumstances. The fact that the
mother has married again after the
divorce of her first husband is no ground
for depriving the mother of her parental
right of custody. In cases like the present
one, the mother may have shortcomings
but that does not imply that she is not
deserving of the solace and custody of her
child. If the court forms the impression
that the mother is a normal and
independent young woman and shows
no indication of imbalance of mind in
her, then in the end the custody of the
minor child should not be refused to her
or else we would be really assenting to
the proposition that a second marriage
involving a mother per se will operate
adversely to a claim of a mother for the
custody of her minor child. We are
fortified in this view by the authority of
the Madras High Court in S. Soora Reddi
v. S. Chenna Reddi[AIR 1950 Mad 306 :
(1950) 1 MLJ 33] where Govinda Menon
and Basheer Ahmed Syed, JJ. have
clearly laid down that the father ought to
be a guardian of the person and property
of
the
minor
under
ordinary
circumstances and the fact that a Hindu
father has married a second wife is no
ground whatever for depriving him of his
parental
right
of
custody."
(Emphasis added)

15. Thus from the aforesaid
observations, it is explicitly clear that
even though father is natural guardian but
simply on that ground he is not entitled to
the custody and guardianship of minor
3 All. Nirbhay Kapoor Vs. M/s Kamero Technosys Ltd. & Anr.
645
children.
Court
while
deciding
guardianship and custody of a minor is to
be guided by the observations made by
Court as referred to above. When the case
in hand is examined in the light of
observations made by Court above, the
balance tilts in favour of mother i.e.
defendant-appellant.

16. In the present case, Court below
while
deciding
the
issue
regarding
appointment of guardian of minor and also
custody of minor has clearly omitted to have
a dialogue with the minor and secondly
return a finding regarding paramount interest
of child is best protected in the company of
plaintiff-respondent or defendant-appellant.
Unfortunately, neither parties have given
date of birth of minor. Since Subhas chandra,
father of minor died on 7.10.2012, Court
presumes that the minor child is not less than
8 years of age. Consequently, it was
obligatory upon Court below to have
conversation with minor child and then
assess as to whether minor Kuldeep wants to
stay with his grand father or his mother.
Court below while deciding issue no.3 which
indirectly also relates to paramount interest
of minor child in the company of plaintiffrespondent
or
defendant-appellant
of
necessity, had also to look into the financial
status of parties. However, Court below upon
an erroneous assumption that since Latoori
Singh grandfather of minor is 60 years of age
and suffering from desease, as such, in case
of his untimely death, there would be no one
to look after minor child. As such, appointed
plaintiff-respondent as guardian of minor and
further directed defendant-appellant to hand
over
custody
of
minor
to
plaintiffrespondent. In our view this finding recorded
by Court below, for holding guardianship of
minor in favour of plaintiff-respondent and
also for handing over custody of minor in
favour
of
plaintiff-respondent,
is
unsustainable in law. As already noted
above, Court below was under legal
obligation to decide the status of parties, the
intention of minor in residing with his
mother or grand father and then return a
finding, as to in whose custody the
paramount interest of minor child is best
protected. Court below having failed to
undertake the aforesaid exercise, we are of
the view that it has not exercised jurisdiction
vested in it in accordance with law.

17. Consequently, the present appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The judgement
dated
23.1.2018
and
decree
dated
5.2.2018, passed by Principal Judge,
Family Court, Kasganj, in Suit No. 25 of
2015 (Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Latoori
Singh) under section 25 of Act 1890, are
set aside. The matter is remanded to Court
below for decision afresh in the light of
observations made in the body of
judgement. Court below shall make an
endeavour to decide the case, preferably
within a period of three months from the
date of presentation of certified copy of
this order by either of the parties. Cost
made easy.
----------

(2019)11ILR A645

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

First Appeal No. 427 of 2019

Nirbhay Kapoor ...Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Kamero Technosys Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents/Defendants

Counsel for the Appellant: