Civil Revision No. 5961 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5961 of 2011 Date of decision. 13.10.2011 Gurdeep Singh .... Petitioner Versus Nachattar Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. By way of this revision petition, brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Gurdeep Singh has challenged the order dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Judge, Ropar, vide which Nachattar Singh has been appointed as guardian of minors Amrit Pal Kaur and Pawanpreet Kaur. Gurdeep Singh, petitioner had been married with Balbir Kaur, daughter of Nachattar Singh, respondent no.1 on 10.03.2004. Amrit Pal Kaur and Pawanpreet Kaur are the minor daughters of the petitioner, born to Balbir Kaur. The husband and wife could not pull on together for long and Gurdeep Singh had to bring a petition for a decree of divorce on 11.06.2008 under the provisions of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(for short 'the Act'). Civil Revision No. 5961 of 2011 --2-- In the said petition, Balbir Kaur filed an application under section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite, which was duly allowed vide order dated 14.11.2008 by the court of Learned District Judge, Ropar. A sum of Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to Smt. Balbir Kaur and a sum of Rs.500/- per month each to the minor daughters had been allowed alongwith Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. As the said amount was not paid by the petitioner, the court dismissed the divorce petition vide order dated 16.01.2009. Balbir Kaur filed miscellaneous application no.22 dated 4.2.2009 before learned District Judge, Ropar seeking payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses with effect from June, 2008. The application was opposed by the petitioner claiming his inability to pay the amount on account of the injuries he suffered in his backbone on account of which he was rendered jobless. The said plea was not accepted and he was sent to civil imprisonment for a period of two months with effect from 30.08.2010. In the meanwhile, the turn of events saw death of Balbir Kaur due to brain haemorrhage on 10.07.2011. After the death of Balbir Kaur, Nachattar Singh, the maternal grandfather of minors Amrit Pal Kaur and Pawanpreet Kaur applied for his appointment as their guardians. The application was opposed claiming that Nachattar Singh is not a fit person to be appointed as guardian because numerous FIRs under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Narcotic Drugs & Civil Revision No. 5961 of 2011 --3-- Psychotropic Substances Act have been registered against him and his family members. He had also claimed that the matrimonial dispute between him and Balbir Kaur was also due to the unnecessary interference on the part of the applicant in their matrimonial life. He has added that Balbir Kaur forcibly took away the minor daughters while leaving the company of the petitioner. Looking to the criminal background of Nachattar Singh, it was prayed that he may not be appointed as guardian of the minors. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned District Judge, Ropar has allowed the application for appointment of Nachattar Singh as guardian of minors. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been brought by Gurdeep Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in his case for obtaining custody of his minor daughters by the impugned order. He has submitted that Nachattar Singh has a criminal background and learned District Judge, Ropar has erred in not taking note of the same. According to him, the future of the children with Nachattar Singh is in dark. It is to be noticed at the very outset that the prayer of Nachattar Singh for appointment as guardian of the minors was limited to the application brought by Balbir Kaur for herself and on behalf of the minors for recovery of the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. The children had been in the custody of their mother, who had Civil Revision No. 5961 of 2011 --4-- been living with her father Nachattar Singh and after the death of Balbir Kaur, the custody of the minors would not automatically revert to Gurdeep Singh. For this purpose, he would have to take recourse to the legal remedy. In those proceedings the welfare of the minor daughters would have to be seen and the circumstances of the criminal background of Nachattar Singh would have to be weighed for reaching a conclusion in the aforesaid regard. For the present purpose, it cannot be said that learned District Judge, Ropar has ignored any evidence brought by Gurdeep Singh showing criminal background of Nachattar Singh. When learned District Judge, Ropar mentions in the impugned order that no record of registration of criminal cases has been produced,it has to be taken that no record was produced, particularly when the petitioner does not claim any such record to have been produced. The minor children of Gurdeep Singh are living with their maternal grandfather, who is not a person without any means. On the other hand, Gurdeep has been sent to civil imprisonment for non-payment of the maintenance pendente lite etc. So for the limited purpose of continuing with the application, no exception can be taken with the appointment of Nachattar Singh as guardian of Amrit Pal Kaur and Pawanpreet Kaur, the minor daughters of Balbir Kaur and Gurdeep Singh. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order and finding no merit in the revision petition, dismiss the same. 13.10.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE