Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** F.A.O.No.3385 of 2003 Date of Decision: 10.07.2014 Jagjit Singh ....Appellant v.
Milkho alias Jaswinder Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH Present: Mr.Kamaljit S.
Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.
**** S.S.Saron, J.
The marriage between the parties was solemnised by way of Anand Karaj Ceremony at Village Bandala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur in November, 1996.
From the marriage, the parties had a son, namely, Lovepreet alias Harpreet, who was born on 18.9.1998.
Due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, litigation ensued.
The matter came up before this Court and a compromise was reached at between the parties and order dated 20.04.1999 was passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.414 of 1999.
In terms of the said order, the custody of the minor son was given to Milkho alias Jaswinder Kaur (respondent).who is the mother of the minor.
The respondent was held entitled to the custody of the minor till such time an order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
It was also directed that on every fiRs.and last Saturday of each month, the respondent Milkho alias Jaswinder Kaur would take the minor to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur so as to enable the appellant to meet him for Renu 2014.07.17 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh F.A.O.No.3385 of 2003 -2- a period of one hour.
The respondent then on 18.07.2000 filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (`Act' - for short) for custody of the minor.
It was inter-alia alleged that the custody of her minor son had been forcibly taken by the appellant on 03.01.2000 and she was the natural guardian and was in a position to arrange for his good education.
The petition filed by the respondent was contested by the appellant.
It was alleged that the respondent had no sympathy for the minor.
She had instigated her brother to cause injuries to the appellant and his family membeRs.In this regard, case FIR No.83 dated 09.09.1999 was registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 34 Indian Penal Code.
It was also alleged that the respondent had left her matrimonial home and she had taken her gold ornaments, cash etc.She also got a false case (FIR) registered against the appellant for causing injuries to her and her brother for snatching the minor child.
The case was found to be false by the police of Police Station Mallanwala.
The learned Guardian Judge, Ferozepur after considering the evidence and material on record by its impugned judgment and order dated 28.05.2003 allowed the petition of the respondent and held that she was entitled to retain the custody of her minor son, namely, Lovepreet @ Harpreet.
It was, however, directed that the respondent would continue to take the minor on the fiRs.and last Saturday of every month to the Court or Renu at any other place to which the parties may mutually decide to enable the 2014.07.17 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh F.A.O.No.3385 of 2003 -3- appellant and his parents to meet the minor.
The appellant – Jagjit Singh aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.05.2003 has filed the present appeal.
The appeal was admitted on 19.01.2014.
Thereafter, an interim order was passed for providing visitation rights to the appellant on 18.11.2005.
As has already been noticed, the date of birth of the minor Lovepreet @ Harpreet is 18.09.1998.
He is now about to attain the age of 16 yeaRs.In Keshav R.
Thakur and another v.
Ruchi Bai, (2005) 9 SCC424 the question of custody of a boy who was living with his grandparents since his father's death when he was six years old was considered.
The boy had attained the age of 16/17 years when the appeal came up before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and he had remained in custody of his grandparents on the basis of an interim stay.
It was held that the boy had remained in the care and control of his grandparents for his entire life and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to grant custody of the boy in the said case to his mother at that stage.
It was observed that the child was old enough to know his own mind.
The mother, however, was given right to meet her son whenever she approached her father-in-law.
In the present case, the boy (minor) is about to attain the age of 16 yeaRs.He has lived with his mother (respondent) for all these yeaRs.Therefore, it would be improper to disturb his custody at this stage.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that despite making best efforts to contact his client, he has not been able to do so.
Renu Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and 2014.07.17 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh F.A.O.No.3385 of 2003 -4- expedient if the custody of the minor continues with his mother (respondent) and the visitation rights as have been fixed and given to the appellant are continued till the minor attains the age of majority.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The appellant shall, however, continue to have visitation rights as have been granted and he shall also be entitled to meet his minor son as and when he approaches the respondent at reasonable hours by giving prior notice.
The visitation rights shall continue till the minor attains the age of majority.
( S.S.SARON ) JUDGE ( NAVITA SINGH ) JUDGE July 10, 2014 renu Whether to be referred to the Reporter?.
Yes/No.Renu 2014.07.17 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh