Civil Revision No. 4098 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4098 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2009 Parminder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Bal Krishan Parmar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 17003-CII of 2009 Allowed. The petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexure P-2 to P-4. CR No. 4098 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, dismissing an application moved by the petitioner for Civil Revision No. 4098 of 2009 (O&M) -2- interim custody of minor child Gurdeep Singh, during the pendency of petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Sections 12 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner claimed the custody of the child on the plea,that when the child was 11 months' old, he was snatched from her, and she was turned out from the house, therefore, being mother of the child she was entitled to custody of the child, as the welfare of the minor child would be in custody of mother, than of father, being of tender age, where he needs love and affection. The learned trial Court did not accept the plea, primarily for the reason that two panchayats were held, where the conduct of the petitioner was not appreciated. Furthermore, the learned Court has held, that keeping in view the status of the husband, and his income and also for the fact that for almost three years the child is with the father, it was not in the interest of the minor child to change the custody at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the respondent-husband is harassing the petitioner, and is not even paying the maintenance. The petitioner has been forced to file a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends, that because of the love and affection of the mother with the child, the Court should have granted interim custody to the petitioner. The contentions cannot be accepted, because, the purpose of adjudication qua interim custody, the Court is only to see the welfare of the child on the available material. Specially in view of the fact that the Civil Revision No. 4098 of 2009 (O&M) -3- petitioner has no source of independent income. The learned trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion, that it was in the welfare of the child, if the custody was kept with the husband. In order to meet the requirement of love and affection, the petitioner has been given permission to see the child on last Saturday of every month in the Court for 2/3 hours. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that instead of Court some other meeting place may be fixed. This plea is accepted. The petitioner is allowed to see the child in some park or any other place of the interest of the child. The place of meeting be fixed by moving appropriate application before learned Matrimonial Court. Except for the modification referred to above, revision petition is dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 24, 2009 R.S.