- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No. 1912 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATON No. 3321 OF 2007 Abhijit Ashitkumar Gandhi ... Appellant Vs Deepa Abhijit Gandhi ... Respondent Mr. Nitin Muley i/b Girish Godbole, for the Appellant. Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Respondent. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 6, 2009. P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge Solapur, rejecting the application filed by the appellant-father for the custody of the minor son Pradhamesh, who is aged about 9 years. 2. The parties to the appeal were married some time in the year 1998 and out of their marital wedlock a son by name - 2 - Prathamesh is born in the year 2002. The parties to the appeal are staying separately since almost after the birth of the child. The relations of the parties are strained. The respondent, mother of the child is staying along with her parents at Solapur. Both of her parents are in a position to look after the child, as the father has retired from the service; whereas mother is the house wife. The father of the respondent has retired as Head of the Department from the University and thus, it is obvious that he is in a position to properly attend to the studies of the child and is also in a position, along with his wife, to look after the child. The respondent is an educated woman, possessing qualifications of B. Com, M.B.A. and is working as an agent for a private Insurance Company. She does not have a fixed office timing and can adjust the working hours. 3. The appellant is carrying on business and works along with his father. The child since beginning is in the custody of the mother and presently aged about 10 years. The Court below has after appreciating the evidence and material placed on record, reached to - 3 - a conclusion that welfare of the child will be better looked after if the child stays in the company of her mother at her parents place. Both the parties appear to be more or less having sound financial condition. The father of the respondent is also drawing pension regularly. Perused the judgment impugned in this appeal. The same does not call for any interference in the first appeal. After weighing all the relevant factors, the District Judge has held that application moved by the appellant does not deserve any favourable consideration. Thus, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. The appeal thus, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 4. However, this is not the end of the controversy. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though no case for custody is made out, the appellant has very much made out case for regular access to the child. It is submitted that respondent is not permitting the appellant regular access to the child. Both the parties were present in the Court, yesterday when I heard the matter. Some - 4 - suggestions were given and in response thereto, a letter addressed by the respondent to her counsel dated 5th February 2009 is placed on record, which is marked 'X” for identification. Perusal of the same reveals that the respondent is agreeable to the following- (i) The appellant may take the child Prathamesh from the respondent at 7 p.m. on Saturday and reach the child to the respondent by 9 p. m. on Sunday. By way of an exception during the period of 'Chaturmas', the respondent has shown her disinclination for stay of the child at the appellant's place on Sunday. However, during the said period, the appellant can avail of company of the son during the above referred time on Friday and Saturday. (ii) The school wherein the child is taking education, has Divali vacation of 15 days and the respondent is agreeable for parting with the custody of the child in favour of the appellant for one week. The said period should be the second half of the vacation. - 5 - (iii) Summer vacation is roughly of 40 days and the appellant can take the child for initial 10 days from the commencement of the vacation. . Proposal Nos. (i) & (ii) above are acceptable to the appellant, hence, an order to that effect is passed. I regard to proposal No. (iii). It is submitted that the child should be permitted to stay with the appellant for 15 days instead of 10 days. Counsel for the respondent agrees for the same. Hence, ordered accordingly. . Though appeal is dismissed, above directions are issued in regard to regular access and matter is disposed of. Sd/- [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.]