FAO No. 4186 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. FAO No. 4186 of 2008 Decided on 10.9.2010. Dawinder Kaur --Appellant vs. Wassan Singh and another -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate,for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J,(Oral) This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO No.4186 of 2008 and FAO No.4187 of 2008 both titled as Dawinder Kaur Vs. Wassan Singh and another. Brief facts of the case are that Dawinder Kaur was married to Jagdev Singh and was blessed with two children namely Mohpal Singh and Mehakdeep Singh. Unfortunatel, Jagdev Singh died in a road accident on 14.1.2004. Elder son Mohpal Singh is living with Wassan Singh, whereas younger son Mehakdeep Singh is living with his mother. Wassan Singh filed an application No.84 dated 24.12.2004 under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act,1890 for appointing him as guardian of both the minor sons of Jagdev Singh (since deceased) and also claimed FAO No. 4186 of 2008 2 service benefits of Jagdev Singh, whereas Dawinder Kaur filed Guardian Case No.35 of 19.5.2005 (Dawinder Kaur Vs. General Public and another) under the same provisions of the Act for appointing her as guardian of minor Mohpal Singh. Both the petitions were clubbed together. The trial Court vide the impugned order dated 11.8.2008 allowed petition No.84 dated 24.12.2004 by which Wassan Singh was appointed as Guardian of both the minors Mohpal Singh and Mehakdeep Singh and further held entitled to all the service benefits available to the minors. . However, he was directed to deposit the monetary benefits arising in the names of the minors in a Nationalised Bank. Guardian Petition No.35 of 2005 filed by Dawinder Kaur was dismissed. Two appeals have been filed before this Court by Dawinder Kaur, one challenging the order passed in favour of Wassan Singh in Guardian Case No.84 of 2004 which has been allowed and the other against the order passed in petition No.35 of 2005 which has been dismissed. FAO No.4186 of 2008 is against the Guardian Case No.35 of 2005 filed by Dawinder Kaur, while FAO No.4187 of 2008 is against Guardian Case No.84 of 2004 filed by Wassan Singh. Both the appeals were take up together in which on 20.8.2009, following order was passed by this Court :- “Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Sandeep Arora,Advocate,for the respondents. The parties,along-with minor children are present in the Court today. Both the minors were allowed to meet each other for about half an FAO No. 4186 of 2008 3 hour in the Court itself. After hearing the case at some length, including the parties and the minor children, I find that the elder one wants to live with his grand father, while the younger one is equally happy to live with his mother. Keeping in view the present situation, it would be appropriate to find out a amicable solution so as to enable both the minor brothers to meet each other periodically if not staying together at one place. Therefore, it was suggested that the minor staying with his grand father should go and stay with his mother on Ist and 2nd Sunday of each month. Similarly, the minor staying with his mother should go and stay with his grand father on 3rd and 4th Sunday of the each month. During the holidays, the above two minors can stay together in the house of their mother for the first part of the holidays and,thereafter both the minor can stay with their grand father during the second part of the holiday. In this manner, both the minor brothers will be able to stay together with their mother as well as their grand father and will also be able to meet each other periodically. FAO No. 4186 of 2008 4 Learned counsel for the parties, on instructions from the parties, state that the aforesaid suggestion is agreeable to the parties. However, they request that this arrangement should be allowed to continue for six months. It is ordered accordingly. The aforesaid arrangement as agreed upon by the parties will be binding on the parties and will be followed religiously in its true spirit. Adjourned to 15.2.1010. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that a direction was issued by the Tribunal to deposit a sum of 1.5lacs in the name of both the minor children in a fixed deposits. The same should be kept in the FDRs till further orders. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected matter.”. On 30.7.2010, both the parties were directed to appear before this Court on 10.9.2010. Dawinder Kaur is present but neither Wassan Singh is present nor any one else is present on his behalf. Learned counsel for the respondent has made a statement that the interim order dated 20.8.2009 may be made absolute as it would be in the interest of both the parties. This statement is accepted by learned FAO No. 4186 of 2008 5 counsel for the appellant as well on instructions from Dawinder Kaur, who is present in Court today. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, both the appeals are disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.8.2009. 10.9.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge