In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.2899 of 2010 ..... Date of decision30.8.2011 Didar Singh .....Appellant v. Paramjit Kaur .....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. Ashutosh Vij, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana, whereby the petition filed by appellant Didar Singh under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short - `the Act') for custody of the minor children Osheen Deol and Manavdeep Singh, who were born on 8.8.2000 and 7.9.2002 respectively out of the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, was dismissed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent had F.A.O. No.2899 of 2010 [2] taken place on 14.11.1999. After the marriage a daughter, namely, Osheen Deol was born on 8.8.2000 and a son namely, Manavdeep Singh was born on 7.9.2002. It is the case of the appellant that as the relations between the parties were not cordial and due to differences between them, the respondent left her matrimonial home along with the minor children in the month of April 2004 and did not return back despite several efforts made by him. Ultimately, the respondent filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a decree of divorce was granted in her favour vide judgment dated 28.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad. The respondent did not even allow the appellant to meet the minor children. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before me that the appellant has sufficient source of income as he is having agriculture land measuring 19 Kanals 17 Marlas and is earning in between `1,80,000/- to `3,00,000/- from the source of agriculture produce. It is also contended that the appellant is also running the business and is earning `1,00,000/- approximately whereas the respondent has no source of income and she is fully dependent on her father and brother and is not in a position to maintain the children and provide them better education. It is also submitted that the appellant be allowed visiting rights to meet his children in the school. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is sufficient evidence on the file that the respondent is providing good education and other facilities to the minor children and she is also providing her love and affection to them. At the time of motion hearing on 23.11.2010, the appellant has F.A.O. No.2899 of 2010 [3] limited his prayer in the appeal only to the extent that he be given right to meet the children, otherwise he is not seeking their custody. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad vide which the marriage has been dissolved by passing a decree of divorce. A perusal of this judgment shows that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence to show that he is well of person and he can give reasonable and considerable amenities of daily life to his wife for leading a happy married life. It has further been held that the appellant was having ulterior motive as he was found indulging in so many criminal cases. This fact is further corroborated from the copies of the FIRs and other things which have been produced today in the Court by learned counsel for the respondent. Three FIRs i.e. FIR No.49 dated 4.7.2007 registered at Police Station Longowal for the offences under Sections 420, 353, 186, 120-B IPC; FIR No.97 dated 27.3.2009 registered at Police Station City Tohana for the offences under Sections 285, 452, 506 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and FIR No.122 dated 28.5.2009 registered at Police Station City Barnala for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC have been registered against 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 F.A.O. No.2899 of 2010 [4] 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. There is no law which can deprive the child from the love and affection of his mother. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the visit of the appellant to the school of the children is likely to affect the mental status and reputation of the children. Though there is nothing on record but from the copies of the FIRs and the facts stated in the Court, it is alleged that it may be possible that the appellant is wanting visiting rights to meet his children in order to remain out of the jail etc. 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 children are their welfare, it is in the best interest of the minor children that their custody is allowed to remain with their mother and taking into account the background of the appellant that he is facing sentence of imprisonment in some of the cases, he is not liable to have visiting rights to meet the children as it will affect their mental status and reputation. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. August 30, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*