C.R. No. 2648 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2648 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 17-12-2009 Arun Aggarwal .........Petitioner Vs Sonika Arora .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Hari Om Attari, Advocate, for the petitioner Shri Divya Sarup, Advocate, for the respondent HARBANS LAL, J. This revision has been filed by Arun Aggarwal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar in petition No.16 (Guardian and Wards Act, of 2008) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for interim custody of minor child or in the alternative right to visit the minor son has been declined. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned trial Court in the impugned order has observed that “the financial status of both the parties is yet to be decided and no finding can be given at this stage because regarding financial status the contention of the parties and the documents produced by them are contrary. It is yet to be decided who was at fault in not maintaining the matrimonial relation. For C.R. No. 2648 of 2009(O&M) 2 deciding the present application for interim custody of minor, the court has to see the welfare of the minor.” There is absolutely no cogent or convincing evidence on the file at this stage to arrive at a conclusion that the custody of minor Hardik is in the safe hands of the respondent. It is yet to be decided that whether welfare of the minor shall be in the hands of the petitioner or in the hands of the respondent. No findings at this point can be given at this stage unless and until both the parties are given proper opportunities to lead their respective evidence. It will not be just and fair at this stage to take the custody of the minor from the respondent and hand over the same to the petitioner in the absence of any cogent ground. The alternative plea of the petitioner also does not find favour with the court, because the petitioner and respondent are not having goods relations. It will not be in the benefit or welfare of the minor to allow visit to minor during the pendency of the petition.” It emanates from these observations that the application could have not been decided in the absence of the evidence. If it was so, the learned trial Court should not have hurried to dispose of the same. Only on being adduced material evidence by the parties, the same could have been decided in an effective manner. Sequelly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the application afresh after recording material evidence. The learned trial Court shall be at liberty to refer the child to some Psychologist of repute at the expense of the petitioner to read the psychology of the child, whether he wishes to reside with the mother or the father. The paramount consideration would be the welfare of the child. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is Dr. Hardeep Singh, Psychiatry Consultant in Fortis C.R. No. 2648 of 2009(O&M) 3 Hospital, Mohali. He is an acknowledged Expert in general and addiction Psychiatry. If deemed appropriate, the trial Court may seek opinion of this Doctor at the expense of the petitioner. Disposed of accordingly. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE December 17, 2009 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No