IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2342 OF 2008 Vikas Namdeo Ambaule ..... ...... ......Appellant. V/s Bhiku Tatyaba Chavan & Anr. ........ ......Respondents. Mr.Mahadev Chaudhari i/by Dr.Prakash K. Deshmukh, Adv. For the appellant. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 6th JANUARY, 2009. PC: An application for custody of the minor child Sairaj aged about four years moved by the appellant came to be rejected by the court below giving rise to the filing of the present appeal. The child is presently in custody of the grand parents. 2. The appellant was married to one Dhanashree in the year 2003 and the child was borne in the year 2004. The wife of the appellant died on 24.6.06. According to the appellant it was suicide. However the appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 498, 406, 323, 504 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted in the criminal case. Since last few years the child has been staying in the company of the parents of the wife of the appellant. The appellant has now married for second time about six months back. The Court below after considering the conduct of the 1 appellant has observed that welfare of the child would be better achieved in the company of his grand parents. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has very recently married for the second time it would be difficult to perceive as to how the second wife of the appellant would treat the child. The Court below had also talked to the child and taking into consideration relevant factors has reached the conclusion that for the present application for custody of the child moved by the appellant does not deserve to be granted. Perused the impugned order. Same does not call for interference. However it is made clear that it shall be open for the appellant to move an appropriate application for custody of the child in the changed circumstances after a period of about two years. It is also made clear that it shall be open for the appellant to move appropriate application before the court below with a view to seek access to the child. With aforesaid observations Appeal stands dismissed. 06.01.2009. 2