In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ....... F.A.O. No.1871 of 2010 (O&M) ...... Date of decision:27.7.2011 Surajmukhi .....Appellant v. Chhotu Ram ....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: Appellant present in person with Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate. Respondent present in person with Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate. ...... Mohinder Pal, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.3.2010 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Hisar, whereby the petition filed by the appellant-Surajmukhi under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of the minor child, namely, Kavita, who was born on 3.3.2001 out of the wedlock between the appellant and respondent was dismissed. I have heard Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and F.A.O. No.1871 of 2010 O&M) [2] have perused the impugned judgment. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent had taken place on 14.2.1999 at Village Shikarpur. Out of the wedlock between the parties one daughter, namely, Kavita was born on 3.3.2001. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent treated her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry and used to give beating from the beginning of the marriage. She along with her minor child was turned out of the house many times by the respondent and finally on 25.6.2005. However, on 25.7.2005, a Panchayat was convened at the house of of Parvati sister of the respondent. The respondent refused to keep the appellant. However, the respondent and his sister snatched the minor child from the lap of the appellant and now the minor daughter is living with her father. As far as husband and wife are concerned both of them seem to be dependent upon their parents. While answering a question, the husband i.e. respondent- Chhotu Ram has stated that his father is having four acres of land and they are four brothers. About one acre of land will fall to his share. Father of the appellant-Surajmukhi is also present in the Court. He has submitted that he he is having only one child i.e. his daughter Surajmukhi and he owns 7.5 acres of land and his daughter is in a better position to take care of the child than that of the respondent. He has also brought to the notice of this Court that he has a sum of around `4.00 Lacs as bank balance apart from sufficient income from the agriculture. Otherwise also, the paramount consideration with regard to the custody of a minor child is her welfare and it is in the best interest of the child that her custody is provided to her mother. A mother always has to think twice, once for herself and F.A.O. No.1871 of 2010 O&M) [3] once for her child. The tie which links mother and child is of such pure and immaculate strength as to never weaken. Home for a child is that where her mother lives. A mother's live for her child is like nothing else in the world. 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, I am of the considered opinion that the mother is in a better position to take care of the child. It is in the best interest of the minor child that her custody is allowed to be given to her mother. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 11.3.2010, under challenge, passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar is set aside. The custody of the child is ordered to be handed over to the appellant-mother Surajmukhi. Both the parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 30.7.2011 where the custody of the child will be handed over to the appellant. July 27, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*