IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3208 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.5.2010. Rajni ....Petitioner Versus Harvinder Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Sarabjit Singh Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated April 7, 2010 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC'), for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking custody of the minor son Gaurav Bangar @ Sunny, was dismissed. The parties to the dispute had separated by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed under Section 13-B of the Act. Though initially custody of the child was given to the petitioner. However, as is noticed by the learned Court below in the impugned order, in the statement before the Court below it was agreed that the respondent will have liberty to approach the Court for seeking custody of the child when he attains the age of five years and the matter thereafter will be decided on merits. The aforesaid statement in the divorce proceedings was sought to be explained by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that it was in routine that these lines were mentioned, otherwise the understanding was that the custody of the child will remain with the petitioner. However, it is not in dispute that no application was ever filed before the Court concerned, which passed the decree of divorce pointing out the error in the statement and that the child had attained the age of five years. In view of the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that the petition filed by the respondent seeking custody of child was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed at the threshold while considering the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 14.5.2010. JUDGE Reema