C. R. No. 6005 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6005 of 2009 Date of Decision : January 15, 2010 Gurinder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Amandeep Kaur .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. G. S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Gurinder Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.10.2009 passed by Guardian Court, whereby application for temporary custody of the minor child Harjit Singh, for celebration of Diwali festival, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The instant revision petition has been rendered infructuous because Diwali festival was celebrated on 17.10.2009 i.e. almost three months back. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide order C. R. No. 6005 of 2009 2 dated 15.10.2009, another application of the petitioner, for temporary custody of the minor on second and last Saturday and Sunday of every month, was also dismissed and the revision petition qua said part of the impugned order has not been rendered infructuous. The contention cannot be accepted because perusal of the entire revision petition reveals that only that part of the impugned order was challenged, whereby application of the petitioner for custody of the minor child for celebration of Diwali festival was dismissed. In entire revision petition, there is no reference whatsoever to the other application of the petitioner, which was also dismissed by the same order, although prayer was of course made that order dated 15.10.2009 be set aside. However, a bare perusal of the entire revision petition reveals that said prayer would also relate to the part of order dated 15.10.2009, by which application for sending the child to petitioner for celebration of Diwali was dismissed. In addition to the aforesaid, the order dated 21.10.2009, passed by this Court, reveals that the petitioner sought a week's time to deposit Rs.50,000/- to show his bona fide in respect of his claim for temporary custody of the child, but the said amount has not yet been deposited although almost three months have elapsed since then. Again vide order dated 06.11.2009, the petitioner prayed for some time to pay arrears of maintenance granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said order has not yet been complied with till date. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is dismissed. January 15, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE