Civil Revision No.7124 of 2008 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7124 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.2.2009 Rupinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Bhola Nath and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner-mother Rupinder Kaur and Bhola Nath- husband-respondent No.1 are engaged in a controversy qua the guardianship of the two issues born out of their union., (The other respondents are mother and two brothers of respondent No.1 Bhola Nath. It is common ground that they are not necessary parties to the plea presently under controversy). The petitioner filed a plea for interim custody of two children born to her from the loins of respondent no.1. Learned Trial Judge heard arguments but deferred disposal of the plea by noticing an averment on behalf of respondent no.1 that petitioner-Rupinder Kaur “was not living in her own house and the child is not ready to go to her mother.” On that premise, the learned Trial Court deferred the determination of “question of custody of child”. The impugned order is untenable on the face of it, particularly when the learned Trial Judge did not even try to record the statement of Civil Revision No.7124 of 2008 -2- ***** children. It also did not notice whether the averment with regard to the mother not living in her own house had been rebutted on behalf of respondent no.1 or not. Learned Trial Court also did not notice the basis of the observation that “the child is not ready to go to her mother”. The wishes of the other child are not even recorded to have ascertained. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. Learned Trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the main plea for custody of the children within two months with effect from 20.3.2009 on which the matter shall be listed before it. The learned Trial Court shall proceed to prepone the matter after notification to the parties. The Court shall not grant more than a fortnight long adjournment. It would, obviously, be illogical to deny access to the mother to meet her children. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has not indicated any particular resistance to that aspect of the matter. It is ordered accordingly that the respondent-husband shall bring along both the children in the Court of the Duty Magistrate concerned, on every second Sunday of the month at 10.00 A.M. The petitioner-mother shall be entitled to be in the exclusive company of her children from 10.00 A.M. To 1.00 P.M. She would be in their company in the Court premises only and will be duty bound to return children to the custody of respondent no.1 in the presence of the Duty Magistrate concerned. This arrangement would not cause any inconvenience to the parties as they are residing in that very town. The fixture of the meeting on Sunday has been ordered in view of the fact that it would not disturb the academic schedule of the children. Disposed of accordingly. February 05, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge