1. Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal, Counsel for appellant.
2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Sagar in Misc.Civil Case No.64/09 by which an application filed by the appellant under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for appellant challenged the aforesaid order on the following grounds:-
(i) Appellant is Urdu teacher and is engaged on contract.
(ii) The respondent is residing with her brothers who are residing in slum area while the appellant is residing in a better locality and can give a better environment to the child.
4. Facts of the case are that the child of the parties is residing with the respondent from his date of birth. There were certain disputes between the appellant and the respondent and when respondent was pregnant, appellant deserted her and since then she is residing with her mother. Appellant moved an application for divorce in the Court of Kazi, Bhopal which was allowed on 7.10.2008 and an order of divorce was passed by the same Court. Thereafter, both parties are residing separately.
6. We have perused the impugned order and found that the trial Court considered all the aspects in the matter. The trial Court found that since date of birth, child Danish is residing with his mother. The brothers of respondents are highly educated and they are able to impart education to the child. Respondent is residing in the area of Shukrawari Tori, Sagar which is having environment of education.
7. The appellant after the birth of child never taken care of him. An order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was passed against the appellant by which the mother was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and the child at the rate of 1000/- per month.
8. Child Danish is studying in an English medium school in Class 8th and he has passed in 1st Class. Considering aforesaid and the conduct of the appellant, the trial Court found that the interest of the child will be safeguarded if he is permitted to be resided with the respondent and rejected the application. In the aforesaid order, we do not find any error. This appeal is found without merit and is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
9. No order as to costs.