In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ....... F.A.O. No.4022 of 2011 ...... Date of decision:28.7.2011 Ram Singh and another ....Appellants v. Usha ....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. Arun Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. ...... Mohinder Pal, J. This case is regarding custody of the minor child. The appellants before this Court are paternal grand-parents against the respondent who is the natural mother. The petition filed by the mother (respondent herein) seeking custody of her son Ankit from the respondent was decreed. Against this order the defendants went in appeal. The order of the trial Court has been affirmed and upheld. This is how the present appeal has been filed. As per facts of this case, Usha widow of Bhupinder Singh F.A.O. No.4022 of 2011 O&M) [2] (respondent herein) was married to late Bhupinder Singh who died on 20.5.2010 while serving as Constable in the Haryana Police Department. A minor son Ankit was born to her from this wedlock on 7.12.2004. She has no adverse interest against her son and was competent to look after Ankit and had sufficient means to maintain him and was an educated lady have studied upto Matric. The respondent (appellant herein) forcibly took Ankit from the custody of his mother on 26.10.2010 and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home after the death of her husband. While arguing before me, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the grand-parents are competent to take custody of the child and are in a better position for his upbringing. It was the respondent who has left the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse after the death of Bhupinder Singh-their son. Further, it has been submitted that there was apprehension that the child is also likely to get infection from the mother as the mother is suffering from the disease of AIDS. The mother was not in a position to look after herself and under these circumstances by no means she can take care of the child. The mother has been residing in a village and as the child requires special treatment, he cannot be allowed to remain in the village along with his mother. In order to strengthen these arguments, learned counsel referred to V. Maria Pushpa Janet Rajam, represented by her father M. Varuvel v. G. Anantha Jeyakumar, 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) (D.B.) (Madras); Smt. Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv Baijal, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 903 (SC) and Shyamrao Maroti Korwate v. Deepak Kisanrao Tekam (SC), 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 647. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the medical record moved along with an application, according F.A.O. No.4022 of 2011 O&M) [3] to which the health of respondent-Usha, mother of the child, has been improving. It has been submitted that she has sufficient means and is in a better position to take care of the child. Finally, it has been submitted that at present she was residing in a city and there was no depth of medical facilities available at that place to face any eventuality. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. There can be no two views about the fact that the mother can be the best guardian to look after the welfare of her child. This is a case in which mother has claimed the custody of her minor child being natural guardian. On the other hand her claim has been opposed by the grand- parents on the ground that she is suffering from HIV positive. In the case of custody of minor, the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. Keeping in view the age of the child, mother will be the best person to up- bring and keep the child in a better atmosphere. Otherwise, also it has come on record that the mother is a patient of HIV positive. Depriving her the custody of child at this stage is likely to affect improvement from the disease. Rather, she will die a premature death in case she is deprived of the custody of 6½ old child. There is no law which can deprive the child from the love and affection of his mother. In V. Maria Pushpa Janet Rajam, represented by her father M. Varuvel v. G. Anantha Jeyakumar (supra) the mother was not mentally sound and the minor children were bitter about their father and they categorically stated that they were not willing to live with their father, but they were very happy with their maternal grand-parents. In Smt. Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv Baijal (supra), the mother of the child has died and the father had contracted second marriage within a year F.A.O. No.4022 of 2011 O&M) [4] of death of first wife and begotten a son and he was serving in a rural village. In Shyamrao Maroti Korwate v. Deepak Kisanrao Tekam (supra), the mother of child has died at the time of delivery and the father of the child had a meager income and indebted to many persons and the father remarried and was having a child. The case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been brought to my notice that the case is fixed before the trial Court for 30.7.2011. The parties are directed to appear in that Court along with the child. The custody of the child will be handed over to the mother on that day. The trial Court will ensure that the custody of the child is smoothly handed over to the mother. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. July 28, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*