In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.3545 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:26.8.2011 Sunil Kumar .....Appellant v. Rajni .....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. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vishwanath Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.2.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short - `the Act') for custody of the minor sons, namely, Sunny Kumar and Raj Machal born on 25.11.2000 and 8.9.2002 respectively, out of the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, was dismissed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.1.1999 F.A.O. No.3545 of 2010 [2] at Sonepat. Sunny Kumar was born on 25.11.2000 and Raj Machal was born on 8.9.2002 out of this wedlock. The relations between the parties are quite strained. Due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the appellant has filed a petition against the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce from her on the ground of cruelty towards him, his family members and the minor children. It is the case of the appellant that the children are in the custody of the respondent at her parental home. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that in the petition for taking custody of the children the appellant has levelled foul allegations against her. She has stated that she is capable of bringing up the children properly than the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is not entitled to custody of minors as he is not able to maintain them being addicted to many habits of vices. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Judge was not justified in not granting the custody of the minor children to the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is financially sound and he will be able to give better living and good education to the minor children whereas the respondent has no permanent source of income and she will not be able to look after the welfare of the children. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the judgment of the learned trial Court is well reasoned and calls for no interference. He argued that the respondent is providing good education to the minor children in Panchsheel Shiksha Sadan, Sonepat and she is providing all necessary facilities to them. It is well-said that a mother always has to think twice, once F.A.O. No.3545 of 2010 [3] for herself and once for her child. The tie which links mother and child is of such pure and immaculate strength as to never weaken. Home for a little child is that where his/her mother lives. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court appears to be justified in not granting the desired relief to the appellant. Otherwise also, the paramount consideration with regard to the custody of children is their welfare and it is in the best interest of the children that their custody is provided to their mother. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the paramount consideration with regard to the custody of the children is their welfare, it is in the best interest of the children that their custody is allowed to remain with their mother. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. August 26, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*