Dharam Pal vs Baksho And Others on 22 July, 2009

FAO No. 2358 of 2008                                                             1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH
                                       --

                                FAO No. 2358 of 2008
                                Date of decision: July 22, 2009


Dharam Pal                                  ........ Appellant

             Versus

Baksho and others                             .......Respondent(s)


Coram:       Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
                       -.-


Present:     Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate
             for the appellant

             Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate
             for the respondents
                    -.-

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.04.2008

passed by the Guardian Judge, Jalandhar, vide which, petition of the appellant

under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor male child,

namely, Harjit Singh, grand son of the appellant, was dismissed.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is the parental grand

father of the minor child, Harjit Singh. After the death of his son, Lakhbir Singh,

the custody of the child remained with Baksho alias Manpreet widow of Lakhbir

Singh-respondent No. 1.

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant would be

satisfied, if he is simply granted liberty to meet his grand son, namely, Harjit

Singh, at regular intervals. He further states that he wishes to limit his prayer in

the appeal only to the extent that the appellant may be allowed to meet his grand
FAO No. 2358 of 2008 2

son at regular intervals.

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection, if the

aforesaid prayer of the appellant is allowed.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, the

instant appeal is disposed of with a direction that the appellant-grand father shall

meet his minor grand son, namely, Harjit Singh, on last Sunday of each month

and, in case, he is unable to meet the child on the aforesaid day, he will not insist

for the same on any other day of that month. However, if he is not able to meet

his grand son on the last Sunday of each month at the behest of the respondents,

the respondents shall inform in advance and allow the appellant to take the minor

child on any other Sunday of that month. The appellant shall take the child from

the house of the respondents at 10.00 a.m. on last Sunday of each month and

bring back the child to the house of the respondents by 6.00 p.m. on the same

day.

The present appeal is accordingly disposed of as a consent order in

the aforesaid terms.

(Nirmaljit Kaur)
Judge
July 22, 2009
mohan