C.R.No.2752 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2752 of 2009 Date of Order: 25.5.2009 Raj Kumar Chhibba and another .....Petitioners Versus Dinesh Sharma and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate for the respondents. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, present petitioners have prayed for setting aside interim order dated 9.5.2009 (Annexure P.1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon whereby modalities of visiting rights of respondent- father qua his minor-11 years old son, for next 3 months, have been worked out. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of minor child Aditya Sharma. It is case of the petitioners that their daughter namely Smt Juhi Sharma was married to respondent No.1-Sh. Dinesh Sharma on 3.12.1996 and from that wedlock a male child namely Aditya Sharma was born on 11.3.1998 at Hoshiarpur. It is further the case C.R.No.2752 of 2009 #2# of the petitioners that soon after the marriage Smt Juhi Sharma discovered that respondent No.1 was suffering from a psychiatric illness Schizophrenia and due to that disease he at times would go out of control and used to physically abuse their daughter Smt Juhi Sharma. It is alleged that respondent No.1 had no love or affection for his wife and minor child. It is further alleged that fed up with the behaviour of the respondent, Smt Juhi Sharma alongwith her minor son namely Aditya Sharma left her matrimonial home on 22.2.2004 and since then she was residing with the petitioners at Gurgaon. It is further the case of the petitioners that after coming to Gurgaon, Smt Juhi Sharma took up a job and was bringing up her minor child at her parental home. During this period, except 7/8 times, respondent No.1 did not contact his wife or minor child. Unfortunately, Smt Juhi Sharma died in a motor vehicular accident on 8.12.2008 leaving behind her minor son Aditya in the custody of her parents-petitioners No.1 and 2. Minor Aditya is stated to be a student of Vth standard at Amity Internal School, Sector 46, Gurgaon. After the death of Smt Juhi Sharma, petitioners filed petition under Section 7 and 16 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 CPC for declaration of the petitioners as Joint Guardians to the person and property of Aditya Sharma. In the said petition, petitioners filed application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short the Act) read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC while respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 12 and 25 of the Act for temporary custody and protection of the minor child Aditya Sharma. While considering these applications, the impugned order dated 9.5.2009 came to be passed, whereby respondent, for next 3 months, was C.R.No.2752 of 2009 #3# granted visiting rights to the child on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month from 9.00 AM to 5.00 PM. It was further directed that if there are vacations of a month or more, the respondent shall have the right to take the child with him for fifteen days and if there are vacations for more than fifteen days, the respondent shall have the right to take the child with him for seven days. It is the part of the order, whereby temporary custody during the holidays has been granted, which is subject matter of the present revision petition on account of disinclination of the 11 years old child to go with his father. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 15.5.2009 for today and handing over of the custody of the minor-Aditya was also stayed. Parties are present in court along with their counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also interacted with the minor child and respondent-father in my chambers. I find the child highly intelligent, doing well in studies and capable of making intelligent and independent choices. I also find the father sensitive to the needs and desires of the child. Learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the interest and inclination of the minor child, have graciously agreed that the directions issued with regard to the visiting rights of respondent No.1-father as stated in para 16 for the said three months be deemed to be modified to the following effect: “With effect from today on every alternate weekends, respondent No.1-father shall take the custody of his son from the residence of his in-laws from 9.00 AM till 7.00 PM (both weeks included Saturday and Sunday). It is clarified that it shall be his duty to ensure that the custody of the child is safely handed over back to C.R.No.2752 of 2009 #4# the grand-parents. It is further clarified that in case, the child has to go out of station from Gurgaon during his vacation period, in lieu of the same, the father shall be entitled to the same visitation rights on some other week days of the vacations subject to convenience of the parties.” In view of the agreed stand of the parties, petition stands disposed of in the above terms. May 25, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE