FAO No. 2069 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on April 21,2010. Khem Singh --Appellant vs. Chiranjiv Singh -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain,Advocate,for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This appeal is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala, exercising the powers of Guardian Judge, dated 19.3.2010, vide which a petition filed under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of minor son, Harmit Singh alias Samar, aged about 8 ½ years has been allowed with a following direction:- '' I direct the respondent Khem Singh to hand over the custody of the child Harmit Singh to the petitioner Chiranjiv Singh within the period of one month from getting certified copies of this judgment. However, respondent shall have visiting rights and accordingly he may pay visit quarterly either alone or with his wife after due information to the petitioner to see the child either in the school where he would FAO No. 2069 of 2010 (O&M) 2 take education in Chandigarh or at the residence of the petitioner and he may also give gifts to the child out of love and affection not detrimental to the interest and welfare of the child at the time of paying visits to him. If any party commits fault in following directions of the court, then legal consequences will follow”. Appellant is the maternal grand father of the minor, whereas respondent is the natural father. Mother of the minor, namely Manjit Kaur committed suicide on 06.6.2004. It is alleged by the natural father that at the time of mutual divorce, his deceased wife had agreed to give the minor child to him but after her death, the appellant herein had retained the custody of the minor child. On the other hand, the appellant had pleaded that his daughter Manjit Kaur was maltreated due to inadequacy of dowry which compelled her to leave her matrimonial home and was forced to live with her parents at Ambala Cantt. It was denied that Manjit Kaur deceased had agreed to hand over the custody of the minor child to her husband at the time of mutal divorce. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Learned Court below found that the respondent/natural father of the minor child is residing at Chandigarh,whereas maternal grand father is residing at Ambala Cantt. Maternal grand father appeared as RW-1 and maternal grand mother appeared as RW-2. They admitted that at the time of mutual divorce, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was deposited by way of FDR in the name of minor Harmit Singh. They are running a shop in Gur Bazar, Ambala Cantt, where maternal grand father and his son used to sit from morning till evening. Learned Court below had found that financial position FAO No. 2069 of 2010 (O&M) 3 of the natural father was much better than maternal grand father. It was also observed that maternal grand parents were busy in a small shop through out the day. On the other hand, natural father had a large family, his two unmarried sister are residing with him and he himself is still unmarried. Keeping in view various factors, young age of the natural father, his marital status, financial competence, company to the child, the learned Court below concluded that it would be appropriate if the minor child lives with his natural father and at the same time, gets love and affection of his maternal grand parents who have been granted visitation rights. Needless to say that the Court while assessing the suitability of the custody of the minor has taken into consideration his welfare and not the rights of the parties under statute. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that minor child would be happy with the appellant as he has been living with him since the day his mother had expired and his future life would flourish in the cradle of their love and affection. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant appears to be attractive but taking a practical view, the Court has found that maternal grand parents are also quite old who have very meagre income as compared to the natural father because the appellant is running a small shop as held by the Court below and the minor would hardly get company at home, whereas if the custody is handed over to the natural father, who is living in Chandigarh and is financially better placed than the appellant having congenial atmosphere at his home as two of his sisters are unmarried and he himself had not remarried, therefore, totality of the circumstances indicate that welfare of the minor is more with the natural FAO No. 2069 of 2010 (O&M) 4 father than the materal grand father. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order which could warrant any interference by this Court in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is herebyby dismissed in limine. April 21,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge