IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO. No.126 of 2010.. Date of Decision: 15.7.2010. _______________________________________________ Suresh Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the petitioner : Mr.Y.K.Chandel, Advocate with Mr.K.S.Chandel, Advocate. For Respondents. : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This petition has been preferred by the husband against his wife challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur granting custody of the minor child to her. A complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was instituted by the respondent No.2 herein. An application under Section 21 of the Act was filed by respondent No.2 seeking custody of the minor child Shiwangi on the allegation that the respondent had been turned out of the house and the minor child was forcibly snatched from her. It is pleaded that the child of tender age of 2 ½ years Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 requires the care of the mother and in these circumstances an order be made granting custody of the child to the respondent mother. 2. The learned court on the material before it concluded that there was nothing on the record to establish that the mother was not a fit person to whom the custody of the child could not be granted. In fact, the minor being female child it is but natural that the mother would be in a better position to look after her interests. The Court also notes that the other daughter is also in the custody of the mother. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the custody of the child was directed to be handed over to the respondent mother. 3. Learned counsel has argued with vehemence that the mother is unfit to retain the custody of the child. It is undisputed before me that the child is aged about 2 ½ years. In these circumstances, it is the mother who would be entitled to the custody of the child as a matter of right under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. I do not intend to interfere in the order passed by the learned trial Court as the order also states that it is an interim arrangement. This Court will not exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere in interim orders more especially when I do not find anything on the record that the respondent mother is unfit to have the custody of the minor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in Smt. Renu Vaid Vs. Ravi Vaid, AIR 1982 Madhya 3 Pradesh 81, I find that the facts in this case are different and not applicable to this case. Even otherwise it is the interest of the child which is paramount. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 15, 2010(R)