IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(GWA) No.9 of 2003. Judgment Reserved on: 18.05.2009 Date of decision: 27.05.2009 Smt.Kausar Parveen …Appellant Versus Sh.Hidayat Ali …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in a petition under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, preferred by the respondent for custody of minor sons Samir and Samad. The case pleaded was that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.5.1992 according to Mohammadan Law and out of the wedlock three children, namely, Kumari Amrin, Master Samir Ahmed and Master Samad were born to the parties. Because of differences arose between the parties, the marital tie between them broke down. On 15.8.1999 a compromise 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 was arrived at to the effect that the appellant herein will reside in different village and the respondent will pay Rs.1,000/- as maintenance etc. The respondent pleaded that the appellant is a resident of Kacha Tank, Nahan and visits her parents frequently which resulted in adversely affecting the educational prospects of the minor son Samir. After trial, his custody was granted to the respondent. I need not go into the entire aspect of the legality of the order as I had called the parties and also interacted with the minor who was aged about 16/17 years. He responded in a very intelligent manner to the questions which I had put to him. The appellant herein has remarried but she and her second husband undertook to look after the education etc. of the minor. Consequent to the order being passed by this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the appellant herein stating that Master Samir has been admitted in Class-VIII of Indira Sagar Institute of Education and Research, Jammu on 17.4.2009. The fee card etc. has also been appended as proof of payment. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The order of the Senior Sub Judge which is under challenge is quashed and set aside. It will be open to the parties to approach this Court for modification if so required. Needless to say that the child whose custody is now with the appellant herein will be attaining majority in a short time when it will be open for him to look after his interest. 3 Cross Objection No.151 of 2003. In view of what I have held and my interaction with the child whose custody is sought, I do not find any merit in the Cross Objections instituted by the appellant herein. I must say that the appellant mother and her second husband with whom I have interacted have been very considerate and affectionate. I find the appellant mother to be the fit person to whom custody of the child is to be granted. The Cross Objection are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. May 27, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.