IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 89 of 2006 Sanjay Saxena … Appellant Versus Smt. Sangeeta Saxena … Respondent Sri Pramod Bailwal, holding brief of Sri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for appellant Dated: June 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 47 (C) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, has been preferred against the order dated 20.1.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Case No. 17 of 2004, Smt. Sangita Saxena vs. Sanjay Saxena, under Section 11/25 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Brief facts of the case are that applicant-Sangeeta Saxena was married with respondent-Sanjay Saxena on 02.12.1995 at Dehradun according to Hindu rites and out of their wedlock a son was born on 05.11.1997. Thereafter, marital life of applicant and respondent could not succeed and relationship between them was dissolved by the decision passed on 20.11.2001 in Suit No.670 of 2001 filed between Sangeeta Saxena and Sanjay Saxena. Respondent-Sanjay Saxena got re- married with Manisha Nigam in July, 2002 and out of their wedlock a son was born in April, 2003. After giving divorce to the applicant-Sangeeta Saxena, the respondent never tried to see his son born from his first wife. The applicant is a literate lady and is earning income from monthly rent, by which she can maintain her son-Tejaswi Saxena @ Nanu, aged about 6 years 8 2 months. Therefore, the applicant prayed that she be appointed guardian of her son permanently. The application filed by the applicant was contested by respondent and he admitted the factum of marriage with applicant and birth of a son out of their wedlock. He also admitted the factum of dissolution of marriage between them. The respondent has pleaded that Petition No. 670 of 2001 filed by claimant-Sangeeta Saxena, under Section 13 & 27 Hindu Marriage Act, has been decided on the condition that if claimant-Sangeeta Saxena again married, then custody of child shall be handed over to the respondent-Sanjay Saxena. The respondent also pleaded that he is Deputy Manager Materials in the Farm M/s Raghuveer Machinery Private Ltd. Narsingpur Gurgaon, Hariyana and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month and as such he is fully competent to look after his son Master Tejasvi. He has also pleaded that he is having his own home in Delhi and therefore he is entitled to get custody of his son. He has further pleaded that applicant has no such financial background, by which she may be able to get his son well-educated. He wants to meet with his son, but the applicant does not allow the child to meet the respondent. The applicant got re-married and she is living with her husband in his house and son of the respondent also living with them. He has thus prayed that application is liable to be rejected. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties was pleased to allow the suit filed by the applicant-Sangeeta Saxena, under Section 11/25 Guardians and Wards Act, vide judgment and order dated 20.01.2006 on the condition that as long as the applicant does not give a birth to a child by her second marriage, till then Master Tejasvi @ Nanu shall remain in custody of applicant. It 3 has been further directed that respondent-Sanjay Saxena can meet with his son once in a moth. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2006, the appellant- Sanjay Saxena has preferred the appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Pramod Bailwal, holding brief of Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of respondent. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the impugned order, I am of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.01.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. I, accordingly, do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP