Civil Revision No.7179 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7179 of 2010 Date of Decision:-28.01.2011 Neelam Rani. ......Petitioner. Versus Parveen Kumar. ......Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner along with petitioner(wife) in person. Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the Respondent along with respondent(husband) in person. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner-wife Neelam Rani has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside/modifying the order dated 29.09.2010(P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge(Sr. Divn.), Sirsa whereby on the application of the respondent-husband Parveen Kumar for grant of interim custody of their 9-1/2 years old minor son-Himanshu during the pendency of the petition under Sections 7, 17 and 25 of the Guardians & Wards Act 1890, the learned court has directed as under:- “ To arrange meeting of the child with his father while attending the court during the time of hearing.” Civil Revision No.7179 of 2010 #2# It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner who is the mother of the minor child-Himanshu though posted as a Mathematics teacher in a high school in district Sirsa is presently residing at Karnal at her parental home and the minor child is also studying at Partap High School, Jhundla, District Karnal and, therefore, it is not conducive to the interest of the minor child to undertake five hour journey from Karnal to Sirsa at the time of hearing for meeting with his father i.e. respondent during the court proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would have no objection if the order is modified to the extent that the father would be at liberty to meet the minor child during lunch break in the school premises on any working first and third Saturday of every month. Upon notice respondent father has caused appearance through his counsel. Learned Counsel for the respondent on instructions from his client is agreeable to the aforesaid modification. He however states that in case the minor child is unable to go on any of the Saturdays, the petitioner side should try and give prior intimation of the same to the respondent. He further prays that it should also be directed that in case the respondent is unable to meet the child on any working Saturday on account of non availability of the child, the respondent then should be given liberty to meet him on the next working day when he attends the school. It is further prayed that the petitioners should also be directed to permit the child to spend part of the summer/winter vacations with the respondent at his place of residence. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted Civil Revision No.7179 of 2010 #3# that the petitioner has no objection if the aforesaid arrangement is permitted to be made, however, vehement opposition is expressed as regards the entrustment of the minor child during vacations. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and interaction with the parties I deem it just and expedient in the interest of justice to dispose of this petition with the direction that the impugned order dated 29.09.2010 would stand modified to the extent that respondent-Parveen Kumar, father of minor child, would be at liberty to meet the minor child during lunch break in the school premises of Partap Public School, Jhundla, District Karnal on every working first and third Saturday of the month. In case on the said two Saturdays the child is unable to come to school then the father shall be at liberty to meet the child on the next working day on which the child is present in the school. The Principal of the school/school authorities are further directed to ensure proper compliance of this arrangement. However, the prayer for grant of interim custody during the vacations period is not accepted at this stage as the respondent-husband is not the aggrieved party before this court nor was this prayer addressed before the learned trial court. Therefore in my opinion no such order requires to be passed. Disposed of in the above terms. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 28th January, 2011 Vinay