IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5303 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.9.2010 Sambit Mallick …..Appellant versus Smt.Leena Mallick ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Appellant filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 to get custody of his minor daughter. That application was dismissed vide the impugned order. However, prayer of the appellant to visit the child was granted in the following terms:- “Applying the aforesaid settled law to the facts of the case in hand when the child is living with her mother since her birth and the child is a female child, to my mind seeing the welfare of the child and his needs the respondent is the best person as she is mother of the child who should retain the custody of the child and prayer of the petitioner for the custody of the child cannot be allowed. However, so far as the prayer of the petitioner for visitation rights of the child is concerned, the same has already been allowed by the court vide order dated 10.1.2008 whereby the petitioner had been given visiting rights of the child on 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. Moreover, as already ordered in case any of the visiting Saturday happens to be a holiday then the petitioner can meet his minor daughter on the subsequent FAO No.5303 of 2010 Saturday. In addition to this it is ordered that the petitioner shall also be allowed to meet the minor child Akansha on her birthday i.e. 10th Oct. of every year for a duration of three hours from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m,. at the house of the respondent or at a place which shall be mutually convenient to the parties. However, the request of the petitioner to allow him to meet the child in her school or to attend the school functions and to have the custody of minor child for a period of 15 consecutive days during summer vacations and during national holidays and other religious festivals cannot be entertained. This issue is decided against the petitioner.” The appellant is also present in Court. It is primary grievance of the appellant that despite order having been passed, the respondent is not allowing him to meet the child, as per directions given by the Family Court. The appellant states that he be allowed to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file an application to get the requisite relief as per directions issued on 22.7.2010. In view of statement made, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to move an application for compliance of the order dated 22.7.2010. If any such application is moved, the same be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within one month. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 17.09.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2