16. fa 2340-08 wth caf 555-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2340 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2010 Sakharam Biru Pukale .. Appellant Vs Rekha Sakharam Pukale .. Respondent Ms. Indrayani M. Koparkar for the Appellant Mr. R.S. Kate for the Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 8th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. Taken up for final hearing as the appeal arises out of a dispute regarding custody of minor children. 2. The appellant is the father of minor children and first respondent is the mother. There are two minor daughters born to the first respondent from the matrimonial wedlock. Present age of the daughters is eleven years and eight years respectively. The appellant made an application under the provision of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the District Judge for grant of custody of the minor daughters. The said application was contested by the first respondent. By impugned judgment and order, the application 1 16. fa 2340-08 wth caf 555-10.doc has been rejected. The learned District Judge has recorded a finding that both the daughters have been admitted in a school and they are taking education. 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that no case is made out as of today to disturb the custody of mother. There are no specific allegations against the first respondent that she is not properly looking after the minors. All along the minors are in custody of the first respondent. Considering the tender age of the minor daughters, it will not be in the interests of the welfare of minor daughters that their custody is disturbed at this stage. All along the custody of the minor daughters is with the mother. 4. By order dated 19th April 2010 passed by this Court on Civil Application No. 555 of 2010, the first respondent was directed to grant access to the appellant to meet the minor daughters. It is desirable that the appellant-father must get an opportunity to interact with the minors and even the minors should have benefit of a company of the appellant-father. Therefore, the said arrangement made by the interim order of this Court deserves to be continued. 5. Another prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that during long vacations of the school, at least for few days, temporary custody of the minors be granted to the 2 16. fa 2340-08 wth caf 555-10.doc appellant. The learned counsel for the first respondent states that in principle, the first respondent cannot have an objection for grant of temporary custody of the minors to the father during the long vacations. However, he stated that duration of temporary custody and other modalities between the parties can be fixed as per the mutual consent. Hence, I pass the following order:- i. The prayer made by the appellant for grant of custody is dismissed. However, directions contained in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the order dated 19th April 2010 will continue to operate till further orders. The said paragraph nos. 5 to 7 reads thus:- "5. The respondent no.1 who is present in Court agrees that the applicant will be permitted access to respondent nos. 2 and 3 on every Sunday at 10 a.m. in the Vitthal Biroba Temple at Village Karvi, Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara. 6. Respondent no. 1 agrees that she will ensure that the children reach the temple at 10 a.m. on every Sunday. 7. The parties agree that the applicant should drop the children home by 5 p.m. on the day meets them." ii. The appellant will be entitled to temporary custody of minor daughters for a reasonable period during the long vacations of the school. The appellant and the first 3 16. fa 2340-08 wth caf 555-10.doc respondent will mutually work out the duration of temporary custody and other modalities. In case of any dispute arises in that behalf, the parties are free to approach the District Court for necessary directions in that regard. It will be also open for the District Court on application made by the parties to suitably modify the aforesaid arrangement for access. iii. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. 6. As the main Appeal is disposed of, Civil Application No. 555 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. [ A.S. OKA, J ] 4 16. fa 2340-08 wth caf 555-10.doc 5