Report No. 133

Earlier Bombay Case

(2) In an early Bombay case,1 also one finds the trial court ignoring the welfare principle. In this case, the application by the father was for his being appointed the guardian under section 19 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, but the application was treated as one under section 25 of that Act. The boy was aged about 7 years and had been living with the mother for the last 5 years. The father had married a second wife. The trial court allowed the application, ignoring the welfare principle.

On the mother's appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court. In the view of the High Court, the welfare of the child demanded that its custody should be continued with the mother, as the father had married again and the step-mother cannot be expected to be very much interested in the welfare of the child, and any members of the prior generation who may be living with the father were also not likely to give the child the required attention and sympathy.

1. Bai Tara v. Mohanlal, AIR 1922 Bom 405.