In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ....... F.A.O. No.7198 of 2010 (O&M) ...... Date of decision:27.7.2011 Baljinder Singh and another ....Appellants v. Ravinder Singh and others ....Respondents .... 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: Appellants present in person with Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Mehtab Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. ...... Mohinder Pal, J. CM No.31111-CII of 2010: For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 222 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. CM No.31112-CII of 2010: F.A.O. No.7198 of 2010 O&M) [2] For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 74 days in re- filing the instant appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.7198 of 2010 (O&M): The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.9.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) (exercising the powers of Guardian Judge), Amritsar, whereby the petition filed by the appellants Baljinder Singh and Harjinder Kaur under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of the minor child, namely, Joban, who was born on 27.7.2001 out of the wedlock between the appellants was dismissed. I have heard Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Mehtab Singh, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 and have perused the impugned judgment. The appellants are the natural parents of the child, namely, Joban and both of them are present in Court. Many years ago, some dispute arose between the husband and wife as a result of which appellant No.2 had left the society of her husband and started living with her parents as a result of that the minor child was taken away by the elder brother (respondent No.1) of appellant No.1 and he further handed over the child to his relatives respondents No.4 and 5, namely, Bhupinder Singh and his wife Kanwaljit Kaur. The child has been residing with them since then. After sometime, the relations between appellant No.1 and 2 became cordial and they again started living together as husband and wife. The appellant No.1 i.e. the father of the child was present in the Court and in an answer to a question F.A.O. No.7198 of 2010 O&M) [3] he has brought it to the notice of the Court that earlier they were not aware of the whereabouts of the child. On 4.7.2007, the appellants visited the house of respondents No.1 and 2 at Ludhiana and asked them about the whereabouts of their child-Joban, however, they were told that that the child was not at home and had gone outside. After sometime, they were told that the child had died. Thereafter, appellant No.1 filed a complaint before the SSP, Amritsar on 8.2.2007. The appellants also filed an application against respondents No.1 and 2 to the Police which was marked to the Women Cell, Civil Lines, Amritsar. The respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Women Cell and told that the child was not with them as they had handed over the custody of the child to respondents No.4 and 5. The appellants made efforts to get the custody of the child but respondents No.4 and 5 refused to hand over the child to them. The learned Guardian Judge has mentioned in the impugned judgment that the appellants had themselves abandoned the child which has been brought up by respondents No.4 and 5 continuously for more than 8 years, therefore, petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. However, as natural parents of the child, the appellants were allowed to meet the child for one hour in a month i.e. first Sunday of every month. In case on the first Sunday of the month the child is busy in some function of the school etc. the next Sunday on which he is free, the natural parents i.e. the appellants could meet with the child for one hour. 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 son is his welfare, it is in the best F.A.O. No.7198 of 2010 O&M) [4] interest of the minor child that his custody is allowed to remain with his natural parents as they are both now living together. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 29.9.2009, under challenge, passed by the learned Guardian Judge, Amritsar is set aside. Respondents No.4 and 5, who are present in the Court, have handed over the minor child to the appellants in the Court itself and they have left the Court premises in the company of the minor child. July 27, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*