CR No. 4674 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 4674 of 2008
Date of Decision: 16.11.2009
Poonam Sood
....Petitioner.
Versus
Deepak Sood
...Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate for the respondent.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The wife-petitioner has approached this Court by way of
instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
impugning the order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the Guardian Judge,
Jalandhar, whereby instead of giving her the interim custody of her
minor daughter, Diksha Sood, she was granted only the visitation rights.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was married to the
respondent on 4.7.2004 at Jalandhar and out of the said wedlock, a
daughter, namely, Diksha, was born on 29.9.2005. It is the custody of
the said minor daughter which is bone of contention between the
parties. On an application having been filed by the petitioner-wife for
interim custody of the minor daughter, under the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, the Guardian Judge, Jalandhar, vide the
CR No. 4674 of 2008 -2-
impugned order dated 30.7.2008 had allowed the petitioner to visit the
minor on third Saturday of each month at House No. 655-A, Sector-8,
Panchkula. It was further ordered that in case the petitioner has any
apprehension, she can move an application before the SHO, Police
Station Sector-8, Panchkula, and thereafter the respondent should
produce the minor at the placed fixed by the SHO with the consent of
the parties so that the petitioner-wife could feel safe at Panchkula.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the
matters of custody of the minor children, where relations of the spouses
are estranged , the welfare of the child should always be kept in mind
by the courts, but in the present case the Guardian Court is not justified
in denying the custody of the minor daughter to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
has supported the impugned order.
The Guardian Judge court while deciding the application of
the petitioner for interim custody of the child had granted visiting rights
to the petitioner by ordering that she can meet the minor on third
Saturday of each month. The relevant observations of the trial court as
recorded in para 4 of its order, read thus:-
“4. The relationship between the parties is not
denied by the respondent. Petitioner is mother of
minor Diksha. So, minor is nearly three years old
and custody of minor is with the father. Respondent
is residing at Panchkula with minor Diksha, whereas
CR No. 4674 of 2008 -3-petitioner is residing at Jalandhar. The application
for interim custody has been resisted by the
respondent. So, as such question regarding handing
over the custody of minor to the petitioner cannot be
allowed as it will amount to deciding the petition.
Interest of justice requires that applicant should have
approach to minor as she is mother of minor and
interest of minor also requires that she should get
love and affection of both of her parents. So,
considering this fact, the petitioner is allowed to visit
the minor on third Saturday of the month. She can
meet the minor at 655-A, Sector-8, Panchkula. If she
has any apprehension, then she can move the
application before SHO of Police Station Sector-8,
Panchkula, and thereafter respondent should
produce the minor at the place fixed by the SHO with
the consent of both the parties, so that applicant can
feel safe at Panchkula.”
In view of the above observations of the trial court, this
Court does not find any ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the
present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
The main case for custody of the child is pending before
the Guardian court in which as stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, evidence of the petitioner had already been concluded.
Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent shall
CR No. 4674 of 2008 -4-
also conclude his evidence within four months.
In these circumstances, the Guardian court is directed to
grant four months’ time to the respondent-husband to conclude his
evidence and thereafter to dispose of the petition expeditiously, latest
by 31.3.2010.
November 16, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE