In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.5352-CII of 2011 and F.A.O. No.5722 of 2010 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:1.9.2011 Yogita .....Appellant v. Sanjay .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. CM No.5352-CII of 2011: For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by affidavit, the application is allowed and the copies of Annexures-P.1 and P.2 are taken on record subject to just exceptions. F.A.O. No.5722 of 2010 (O&M): The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.8.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, whereby the petition filed by appellant-Yogita under F.A.O. No.5722 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short - `the Act') for custody of the minor child Lokesh, who was born out of the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, was dismissed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 20.11.2002. Out of this wedlock, a son, namely, Lokesh was born on 11.7.2004. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent lodged a false FIR against her with the Police Station, Civil Lines, Sonepat in collusion with the Police under Section 406 IPC. In the FIR, it was alleged that the appellant had run away with one Gagan and took along with her minor child Likesh and cash amount of `65,000/-, golden ornaments weighing nearly about 10 Tolas, all the valuable house hold articles and pass book. The respondent had forcibly taken away the minor child from her parental house at Geeta Colony, Sonepat. It is submitted that the appellant along with her relatives and some respectable persons asked the respondent to give her the custody of minor child but he did not allow her even to meet the child and refused his custody. The appellant being the mother of the minor child, it is submitted, is entitled to take the custody of the minor child. The respondent got registered FIR No.111 of 2007 on 31.5.2007 with the Police Station Civil Lines, Sonepat against the appellant as well as against said Gagan and they were arrested by the Police on the same day and recovered an amount of `7,100/- and some ornaments from both of them. The respondent has submitted that the appellant is not a lady of good moral character as she has run away with one Gagan with whom she has illicit relations. She is in the habit of leaving the house of the respondent without his permission and consent. It is submitted that she F.A.O. No.5722 of 2010 (O&M) [3] never cared for the minor son. He and his parents tried their best to convince her to withdraw her relations with the said Gagan but she flatly refused to do so. Due to strained relations between the parties and matrimonial disputes, the appellant had run away with said Gagan. It is submitted that the appellant while leaving the company of the respondent, she had thrown the minor son on him by saying that she did not want to have any relation with the respondent and his child and the minor child is in his custody since then and is being looked after by him and his family members. The appellant is neither having any source of income nor any property to look after the child and provide him the amenities and good education, whereas the respondent is having sound financial position and he is looking after the minor child, who is school going, with the help of his own parents. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced in Court today judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide which the appellant has been acquitted of the charge levelled against her by giving her the benefit of doubt. Similarly, Gagan, with whom she had run away has also been acquitted of the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.A perusal of Annexures-P.1 and P.2 which have been taken on record vide CM No.5352-CII of 2011, it is evident that the parties have obtained divorce from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat on 8.9.2010. Otherwise also, the paramount consideration with regard to the custody of a minor child is his welfare and from the facts and F.A.O. No.5722 of 2010 (O&M) [4] circumstances of the case it is in the best interest of the child that his custody is remained with his father. The appellant has obtained divorce from the respondent. The minor child is being look after properly by the respondent and there is nothing on record which shows that there is anything adverse against the respondent or his family members which may hamper proper upbringing and welfare of the child. Moreover, the appellant is not having any independent source of income and as she has remained in jail after eloping with Gagan, it will not be in the interest of the minor child that his custody is given to her. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the paramount consideration with regard to the custody of the minor child is his welfare, it is in the best interest of the minor child that his custody is allowed to remain with his father. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. September 1, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*