In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.2930 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:9.8.2011 Mang Singh .....Appellant v. Sukhjit Kaur .....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. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.5.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, whereby the petition filed by appellant Mang Singh under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short - `the Act') for custody of the minor Amandeep Kaur alias Sukhwinder Kaur was dismissed. The minor is grand-daughter of the appellant and was born on 5.11.1999 out of the wedlock between respondent-Sukhjit Kaur and Hartej Singh son of the appellant. As per facts of this case, Sukhjit Kaur was married to Hartej F.A.O. No.2930 of 2010 [2] Singh son of the appellant, who died on 20.6.2002. A minor daughter, Amandeep Kaur alias Sukhwinder Kaur was born on 5.11.1999 to her from this wedlock. She has no adverse interest against her daughter and was competent to look after the minor and had sufficient means to maintain her. After the death of husband of the respondent, she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the appellant. Thereafter, she contracted second marriage with Jeet Singh. In spite of her second marriage with Jeet Singh, all the needs and facilities of minor are being satisfactorily fulfilled without fail by the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of this case. While arguing before me, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the grand-parents are competent to take custody of the child and are in a better position for her upbringing. It was the respondent who has left the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse after the death of Hartej Singh-their son and got remarried with Jeet Singh. The mother was not in a position to look after the minor as she has contracted second marriage. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appellant has filed this appeal in order to grab the property of the minor. Minor Amandeep Kaur is having 1¼ Killas of land which is in the possession of the appellant and he is misutilizing the property of the minor for his own use. It has been submitted that she has sufficient means and is in a better position to take care of the child. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. The trial Court while taking into account the facts and F.A.O. No.2930 of 2010 [3] circumstances of the case dismissed the petition while holding that the minor has agricultural land which is in possession of the appellant, which is not rendering proper account of fruit of the land. Neither he is depositing the entire amount in the name of the minor nor he is giving the same to the minor and accordingly the petition was dismissed. During the course of pendency of the petition, this Court on 5.4.2011 passed the following order:- “The respondent-mother, daughter and also father of the respondent appeared in person in Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who is the paternal grand father of the child be given visiting rights to meet the child, whose custody is with mother. The mother, maternal grand father and the child said that they have no objection in case the paternal grand father comes to meet the child on holidays as the minor has to attend the school. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he will instruct the appellant accordingly. Adjourned to 26.04.2011.” The visiting rights have been granted to the appellant. The mother of the child is still alive. There can be no two views about the fact that the mother can be the best guardian to look after the welfare of her child. In the case of custody of minor, the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. Keeping in view the age of the child, mother will be the best person to up- F.A.O. No.2930 of 2010 [4] bring and keep the child in a better atmosphere. There is no law which can deprive the child from the love and affection of her mother. 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 her welfare, it is in the best interest of the minor child that her custody is allowed to remain with her mother. I do not find any reason to hand over custody of minor child to the grand-parents. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. August 9, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*