FAO No. 2871 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 2871 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.1.2011 Manjit Kaur .. Appellant v. Gurmail Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. S. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. S. Salar, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned court below on a petition filed by the paternal grand father for custody of Baljinder Kaur. The learned court below directed that custody of the minor child be handed over to the respondent No. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the natural mother of the child. It is a case in which two daughters were born out of the wedlock of the appellant with late Ranjit Singh son of Gurmail Singh. After the death of the husband of the appellant, one daughter was kept by the paternal grand father of Baljinder Kaur, whereas the second daughter was living with maternal grand parents. After the appellant filed a petition claiming maintenance for the minor child, i.e., Baljinder Kaur living with her maternal grand parents, the paternal grand father filed the petition for custody thereof. The learned court below finding that the paternal grand father has enough means to maintain the second girl child, born out of the wedlock, directed that custody be given to him. It was also noticed by the learned court below that maternal grand father stated before the court that he had no means to bear the expenses to bring up the child. Another reason given by the court is that if the custody of the child FAO No. 2871 of 2010 [2] involved is handed over to the paternal grand father, both the sisters will live together, as the elder sister was already living with the paternal grand father. On 18.11.2010, to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, the parties were directed to be present in court. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is not interested to appear in court. It is not disputed that the appellant after the death of her earlier husband had re-married. Considering the aforesaid facts and also the reasons recorded by the court below, namely, that the maternal grand father is not having means to maintain the child, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant-mother be given some visiting rights. Respondent No. 1- Gurmail Singh is present in court in person. He stated that the elder child is already living with him and after the custody of second child is given to him, the mother has the liberty to visit his house to meet both the children. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 27.1.2011 mk