Civil Revision No. 4144 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4144 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.07.2011 Jagjit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Kritika and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr. Divya Sarup, Advocate, for the petitioners. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of the present revision petition and emanating from the record is, that Jagjit Singh son of Jai Kishan and his parents-petitioners, filed a petition against, Kritika Mukesh Bura wife of Jagjit Singh and her parent-respondents, for appointing and declaring Jagjit Singh as Guardian of minor Khyati and for her (minor) custody, invoking the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. During the pendency of the main petition, the petitioner-husband instituted two applications for interim custody (Annexure P-1) and partial custody (Annexure P-3) of the minor. The respondent-wife contested the claim of the petitioner-husband and filed the reply(Annexures P-2 and P-4) to the applications. 3. The District Judge, Family Court, after taking into consideration the welfare of the child, dismissed both the applications for interim and partial custody, by means of impugned orders dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure P-5) and 07.06.2011 (Annexure P-6), respectively. 4. The petitioner-husband did not feel satisfied with the impugned Civil Revision No. 4144 of 2011 (O&M) 2 orders (Annexures P-5 and P-6) and preferred the present revision petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioner-husband is natural father/guardian of the minor child, so, he is entitled to her interim/partial custody, is neither tenable, nor the observation of the Delhi High Court in case Paramajit Singh Lamba Versus Smt. Prabjot Kaur, AIR 2004 Delhi 318, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was observed that the Act/Statute proclaims the father to be the natural guardian of the child, but it clarifies that till minor attains the age of five years, her custody would ordinarily be granted to the mother. However, in a given case, the father can be permitted to see his minor child. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observation, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner-husband. 7. As is evident from the record that the marriage of Jagjit Singh- petitioner husband was solemnised with Kritika-respondent No.1 on 20.04.2006. A daughter, namely, Khyati(3 years old) was born out of the said wedlock on 05.03.2008. Their relations became strained and they are residing separately. 8. What is not disputed here is, that from the very beginning, minor (Khyati) is in the lap of her mother. Being a minor child of three years, she is unable to understand or interact with her father. Therefore, taking into consideration the paramount consideration for welfare of a minor child, to me, it would not be in the interest of a minor child of three years, to disturb her custody, in any manner, at this stage. Moreover, if the petitioner-husband is permitted to see the child in the custody of the mother, then the possibility of deepening their strained relations, cannot possibly be ruled out, which would naturally adversely Civil Revision No. 4144 of 2011 (O&M) 3 affect the welfare of a child. 9. In this manner, the District Judge, Family Court, has recorded the valid grounds, while declining the interim/partial custody to the petitioner- husband, by virtue of impugned orders(Annexures P-5 and P-6). Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned orders are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest if 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. 12.07.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema Judge