In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM Nos.29249 & 29250-CII of 2010 and F.A.O. No.6784 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:9.8.2011 Sandeep Arora .....Appellant v. Pooja .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ...... Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the appellant. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. Civil Misc. No.29249-CII of 2011: For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 57 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. No.29250-CII of 2011: For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.6784 of 2010 [2] F.A.O. No.6784 of 2010: The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar whereby the petition filed by appellant Sandeep Arora under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short - `the Act') for custody of the minor child Master Parshant, who was born on 8.10.2003 out of the wedlock between the appellant and respondent, was dismissed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent had taken place on 8.8.2000. It is the case of the appellant that due to differences between the parties, the respondent left her matrimonial home along with the minor child in the month August 2006 after having fight with the appellant and did not return back despite several efforts made by the petitioner. Ultimately, the appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This petition was withdrawn by the appellant on the request made by the respondent and a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent was filed by the parties as the matter was compromised between them and an amount of `2,50,000/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent as lump-sum amount of settlement. On 11.8.2007, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. It was decided between the parties, that the respondent would give the custody of the minor son after six months from the filing of the divorce petition, but she later on declined to hand over the custody of the minor. The respondent did not even allow the appellant to meet the minor child. The appellant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and F.A.O. No.6784 of 2010 [3] examined Ravi Bhatt as PW-2, Rajender, Process Service as PW-3 and Dharambir, Process Service as PW-4. On the other hand, respondent Pooja appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and no other witness was examined by her. After the marriage a daughter, namely, Khushboo was born and she is residing with the appellant-Sandeep Arora. A baby boy, namely, Parshant was born on 8.10.2003 and is in the custody of the respondent since birth. It is also not in dispute that after the divorce under Section 13 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant had remarried with a lady who is already having one child. On the other hand, the respondent is still unmarried. The appellant had pleaded that his mother is a housewife and she can easily look after minor Parshant, but mother has not appeared in witness box. Petitioner has to look after his other two children and to spend time with his second wife. There is sufficient evidence on the file that the respondent is providing good education and other facilities to the minor Parshant and she is also providing her love and affection to him. Under these circumstances, the trial Court was justified in holding that no relief could be granted to the appellant. Otherwise also, the paramount consideration with regard to the custody of a minor child is his welfare and it is in the best interest of the child that his custody is provided to his mother. A mother always has to think twice, once for herself and once for her child. The tie which links mother and child is of such pure and immaculate strength as to never weaken. Home for a child is that where his mother lives. F.A.O. No.6784 of 2010 [4] Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the paramount consideration with regard to the custody of the minor child is his welfare, it is in the best interest of the minor child that his custody is allowed to remain with his mother. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. August 9, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*