1 2025:CGHC:7085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 38 of 2017 • Keshavram Manhare, S/o Dhanush Ram Manhare, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Sivaji Nagar, Khursipar Gate, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No.1). ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Maruti Manhare, W/o Shri Keshavram Manhare, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Karmchari Colony, House Of Shri Kishan Lal, House No.193, Simga, Tah. Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Namrata Manhare, D/o Shri Keshavram Manhare, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Res.No.1, R/o Karmchari Colony, House Of Shri Kishan Lal, House No.193, Simga, Tah. Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3. Prachi @ Dipali Manhare, D/o Shri Keshavram Manhare, Aged About 6 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Res.No.1, R/o Karmchari Colony, House Of Shri Kishan Lal, House No.193, Simga, Tah. Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (henceforth ‘the Act of Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.02.10 11:32:12 +0530 2 1890’) challenging the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Baloda-Bazar, District Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) in Guardian Ward Case No.8/2015, whereby the application filed by the appellant for custody of his minor daughters namely, Namrata Manhare and Prachi @ Dipali Manhare has been rejected. 2. During the course of submission, when specific question was posed to the counsel for the appellant as to what is the age of both the minor girls in respect of whom, application for custody has been filed, then he would submit that present age of Namrata Manhare is about 16 years and present age of Prachi @ Dipali Manhare is about 14-15 years. 3. Since both the daughters of the parties are adolescence, further as informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is posted on the post of Head Constable in Reserved Police Force and respondent No.1/mother of the children is working as teacher in private school, therefore, having considered the aforesaid fact, it can be very well supposed that being a Head Constable in Reserved Police Force, the appellant may be posted in remote areas and his duty is more hardened than mother of children. Hence, considering aforesaid fact and further considering the finding of learned District Judge in rejecting the application filed by the appellant, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 19.12.2016. Accordingly, the same is affirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 4. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 5. Record of the court below be sent back. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-