IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3465 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2011 Smt.Surasti …..Appellant versus Smt.Maya ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 1.10.2010, passed by the District Judge, Family Court at Hisar, dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, claiming custody of minor female child Sonam, aged about two years, at the time when application was moved. As per facts on record, respondent is the wife of Bhal Singh, deceased son of the appellant who died on 3.3.2008. Bhal Singh and the respondent were married on 22.1.2006. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 6.9.2007. It is case of the appellant that after the death of Bhal Singh, respondent along with female child, left her matrimonial house after about one month and started residing with her parents. Thereafter, she solemnized marriage with one Brahm Pal on 28.5.2009. Custody of the female child FAO No.3465 of 2011(O&M) was claimed by the appellant being grandmother and also stating that the child was not being maintained properly by the second husband of the respondent. Upon notice, respondent appeared and filed a reply denying all the allegations leveled by the appellant. The trial Court, as per pleadings of the parties, formulated the issues. The parties were given ample opportunity to produce evidence and after recording the same, the Court below came to a conclusion that the appellant has failed to show that the child’s future will be safe in the hands of the appellant and further that the child was not being maintained properly by the respondent and her second husband. After taking note of evidence led by both the parties, the trial Judge observed as under:- “From the rival contentions of the parties, it is observed that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner Surasti who is related with the minor as grand mother and respondent is the mother of the minor. It is to be noted here that petitioner is old aged woman. It is to be noted here that in cross-examination the petitioner has admitted that the respondent and minor Sonam have also share in the immovable properties. It is also to be noted here that the father of minor Sonam namely, Bhal Singh expired and in these circumstances the respondent entered into second marriage with one Bhram Pal alias Papla. Brahm Pal is owning car and is earning handsome amount. Brahm Pal had also promised the respondent to look after and maintain the minor Sonam. It is to be noted that the mother has much love and affection with the minor instead of grand mother. The age of the minor is also about 3 years and the welfare of the minor is paramount consideration and in these 2 FAO No.3465 of 2011(O&M) circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the welfare of the minor Sonam is with the respondent instead of the petitioner and this issue is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.” At the time of arguments, we asked Mr.Shailendra Jain to read the statements made by the appellant and other witnesses to know whether when respondent along with the child left her matrimonial house, any attempt was made to bring them back or any arrangement was made for their survival by sending some money etc. or not? Mr.Shailendra Jain has frankly admitted, on reading of the statements, that nothing of the sort has been proved on record. It is an admitted fact that after death of her father Bhal Singh, the child has become a co-sharer in some immovable property. It appears that, to grab that share of the property, the appellant had started claiming custody of the minor child. There is nothing on record to show that the child is not being properly maintained by Brahm Pal second husband of the respondent. Rather Brahm Pal has appeared in the witness box and stated that his earning is very good, it was his second marriage with the respondent, from the first marriage, he also has a child and is capable of maintaining the family in a proper manner. Under the circumstances, we feel that no case is made out for interference in the judgment passed by the Court below. The appeal is barred by 90 days. No specific ground has been made to condone the delay. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 20.07.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3 FAO No.3465 of 2011(O&M) 4