Sitaram Patel v. Smt. Sumitra). The minor child, Hansraj Patel, was born during t
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38594-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 187 of 2023 1 - Sitaram Patel S/o Gangaram Patel Aged About 52 Years Caste, Marar, R/o Village Girwani, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Sumitra Patel D/o Ayodhya Prasad Patel Aged About 36 Years Caste Marar, R/o Village Ghatmadwa (Gidhouri), Police Station Gidhouri, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
2 - Minor Hans Raj Patel S/o Sant Ram Patel Aged About 5 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sumitra Patel, R/o Village Ghatmadwa (Gidhouri), Police Station Gidhouri, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board Per; Rajani Dubey, Judge 05/08/2025 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 1. The appellant/plaintiff, Sitaram Patel, instituted the present suit under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, seeking custody of his 2 minor son, Hansraj Patel (respondent no.2). It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant and respondent no.1, Smt. Sumitra Patel, were lawfully married and subsequently divorced by order dated 27.01.2020 in Case No. 66A/2019 (Sitaram Patel Vs. Smt. Sumitra). The minor child, Hansraj Patel, was born during the wedlock on 03.05.2017, and presently remains in the custody of the respondent no.1. The appellant/plaintiff contended that he is financially sound and capable of providing a better and more conducive environment for the upbringing and education of the child. He submitted that the respondent no.1 is economically weak, resides with her parents, and is unable to provide sufficient care or proper education to the minor child. The appellant further pleaded that his son is of an age where his education is of paramount importance, but the respondent no.1 has shown a lack of interest in ensuring proper schooling and overall welfare of the child. Conversely, the appellant asserted that he is gainfully employed as a compounder and also engages in agricultural work, enabling him to provide a stable and nurturing environment. Hence, the appellant sought custody of the minor son in his favor, claiming that such custody would be in the best interest of the child. The respondent no.1 contested the suit vehemently by filing a reply denying all allegations and asserting that she is fully capable of taking care of the minor child. She further argued that the welfare of the child is best served by allowing the child to remain in her custody, given the emotional bonds and the environment provided by her family. Upon examining the pleadings, evidence, and oral testimonies, the learned Family Court Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara dismissed the suit of appellant, holding that the appellant had failed to establish his claim for custody 3 on a preponderance of probabilities. The Family Court concluded that no material evidence was placed on record to justify transferring custody from the respondent no.1 to the appellant, and thus the suit was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2023 is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record, and is arbitrary, perverse, and legally unsustainable. It was argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate the critical facts that the appellant is a prosperous individual who is deeply committed to the welfare and education of his son. The ability of appellant to provide better schooling and a conducive atmosphere for growth and development of minor child was overlooked. It was contended that the Family Court erred in holding that the appellant had failed to prove his case, disregarding the evidence demonstrating the financial capacity of appellant and genuine affection for the child. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that the respondent no.1 is dependent on her parents and does not earn an income sufficient to meet the needs of child, which adversely affects the prospects of child of receiving a quality education and a stable life. The right of appellant to seek custody under the Guardian and Wards Act was underscored, and it was prayed that the custody of Hansraj Patel be awarded to the appellant in the best interests of the welfare, education, and overall upbringing of child. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Family Court rightly dismissed the suit after due consideration of all evidence on record. It was submitted that the paramount consideration in custody 4 matters is the welfare of the child, and the respondent no.1 has been providing adequate care, love, and support despite her limited financial means. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the child has a strong emotional bond with the respondent no.1 and her family, which cannot be disturbed lightly. It was argued that the appellant failed to prove that the transfer of custody was necessary or beneficial to the welfare of child. The ability of respondent no.1 to nurture and care for the child in a familiar environment was highlighted, and the decision of Family Court to dismiss the suit filed by the appellant was submitted to be both factually and legally sound. Learned counsel further submitted that the parties have amicably settled their differences through a settlement agreement dated 31.10.2023. This settlement evidences the parties’ commitment to jointly ensure the welfare and upbringing of the minor child, rendering the continuation of the appeal unnecessary and moot. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the record. 5. It is pertinent to mention that on 31.10.2023, the parties herein have amicably arrived at a settlement agreement concerning the custody and welfare of the minor child, Hansraj Patel. The terms of this settlement reflect a mutual understanding, with both parties agreeing to resolve their disputes and refrain from further litigation on the matter. In light of the said settlement, this appeal has become infructuous, and the parties are directed to comply strictly with the agreed terms for the welfare of the minor child. 5 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as parties have entered into a settlement, and the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Family Court Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara stand affirmed. The parties are bound by the settlement agreement dated 31.10.2023 and are directed to act in accordance with its provisions. Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna