1 2025:CGHC:7087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 18 of 2018 • Mahendra Alias Raju Rajput, S/o Shri Toran Rajput, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Jaitpuri, Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.), Civil & Revenue District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • Kumari Nidhi, D/o Mahendra Alias Raju Rajput, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through Her Maternal Grandmother Smt. Ramphul Bai, Wife Of Kunjram Verma, R/o Mohd. Bashir Khan Ward, Mungeli, Police Station And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : 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 1890’) challenging the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. H-10A/2014, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 10 of the Act of 1890 for custody of his minor daughter namely, Ku. Nidhi/respondent, has been rejected. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.02.10 17:14:44 +0530 2 2. During the course of submission, when specific question was posed to the counsel for the appellant as to what is the age of the minor girl in respect of whom, application for custody has been filed, then he would submit that present age of Ku. Nidhi Rajput is about 15 years. 3. The daughter of the appellant is adolescence. The respondent in her written statement filed before the Court below has submitted that the appellant has performed second marriage and there are children from his second marriage. Respondent, after death of her mother, is residing in the custody of her granny. The appellant is not taking care of the respondent like a father and has neglected her to avoid paying maintenance. 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 14.09.2017. 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/-