Civil Revision No.5986 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5986 of 2011 Date of Decision:28.09.2011 Ram Sehgal and another ......Petitioners Versus Kamal Kapoor .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Ms.Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, the marriage of Anju, daughter of Ram Sehgal and Kanta Rani Sehgal-petitioners, was solemnised on 28.05.2005 with Kamal Kapoor son of Late Harbans Lal-respondent-husband, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Ludhiana. They resided and cohabited as husband and wife and a male child, namely, Krishan Kapoor was born out of the said wedlock on 15.09.2006. 2. As luck would have been, Anju Kapoor died on 14.09.2009, on account of her kidney ailment and the minor was residing with her parents- petitioners(herein). Thereafter, the respondent-husband moved a petition for the custody of his minor son, invoking the provisions of Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act. He has also filed an application for the interim custody of his minor son. 3. The prayer of the husband was refuted by the petitioners and filed the Civil Revision No.5986 of 2011 2 reply, denying the allegations contained in the application for interim custody and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The Guardian Judge accepted the application for interim custody and directed the petitioners(herein), to hand over the custody of the minor to his father, within a period of one month, by virtue of impugned order dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure P-1). 5. Aggrieved by the impugned decision (Annexure P-1) of the Guardian Judge, the petitioners preferred the present revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with her valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that respondent-Kamal Kapoor- husband is the natural guardian of minor Krishan Kapoor and is legally entitled to his custody. Moreover, in such cases, the paramount consideration is welfare of the minor. It is not a matter of dispute that the only son of the petitioners, had fallen in bad company and was arrested for committing theft and robbery by the police. Above all, they are old persons and are unable to well-educate and maintain the minor. 8. On the contrary, respondent-husband is father and the natural guardian, an educated person, earning hand and is able to well maintain and to educate his minor son. Keeping in view the welfare, the Guardian Judge, has rightly ordered the interim custody of the minor to his father, by means of impugned order dated 08.08.2011(Annexure P-1), which in substance is as under:- “It is pointed out by the petitioner and not disputed by the respondent that respondent had only one son who has also fallen in bad company. He has been disowned by the respondent himself. Newspaper cutting shows that sole son of the respondent has been arrested with the allegations of theft Civil Revision No.5986 of 2011 3 and robbery. On this basis, it is argued that when respondent could not rear his son properly to make him good citizen. How the welfare of the minor is expected in his hands? Undisputedly, interests of the minor are of paramount consideration in any decision of interim or final adjudication of petition for custody of minor. It is to be noted that petitioner is father of the minor. He is educated and earning. He has not entered into second marriage. He is in better position to look after the welfare of minor. On the other hand, respondents are old persons. The own son of respondents has fallen into bad company carries some weight. Respondents failed to rear their own son properly.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned order is illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. 10. Meaning thereby, the Guardian Judge has recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned order in this respect. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the main petition, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 12. Needless to mention that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, during the course of hearing of the main petition, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present controversy only. Civil Revision No.5986 of 2011 4 September 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5986 of 2011 5 C.M.No.23824-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5986 of 2011 Present: Ms.Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE