IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2390 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: April 08, 2011 Jasdeep Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Navneet Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Verma and Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the Guardian Judge, Karnal, dismissing the application under Section 151 CPC of the petitioner for taking Kasni, (three years old) minor daughter from the custody of her mother for Namkaran ceremony. Though a composite application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed, yet, the court deferred the decision on the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The facts in the background of the case are that Jasdeep Singh- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') was married to Navneet Kaur on 15.9.2007. Out of the wedlock, a daughter namely 'Kasni' was born in the year 2008. After the marriage, a tumer was detected in the brain of the respondent on 26.11.2008. As per the advice of the doctor, she was admitted for the surgery on 27.11.2008 and she was operated upon for the tumer on 1.12.2008. She was discharged from the hospital on 26.12.2008. However, on 10.1.2009, she had allegedly left the matrimonial home at Delhi and had gone back to her parental house at Karnal. Then on 1.4.2009, the respondent had lodged an FIR against the petitioner. She had also filed an application for custody of the minor child namely Kasni before the Guardian Judge, Delhi on 8.4.2009. However, the custody of the child was handed over to the respondent by the petitioner on 24.4.2009 out of the Civil Revision No. 2390 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** court. Resultantly, the petition dated 8.4.2009 having become infructuous, was withdrawn on 3.7.2009. Apprehending that the respondent had left the child at Ludhiana with her sister, the petitioner had filed an application for custody of the minor on 23.7.2009. In the said application, interim order was passed on 9.1.2010 vide which the petitioner was permitted to meet the child for first four Sundays of every month from 11.00 a.m. To 3.00 p.m. at hotel Savoy Green, Karnal. Again, vide order dated 30.7.2010, the Guardian Judge, Karnal, modified the order which reads as under :- “........ petitioner Jasdeep Singh would meet the child Kasni on the 1st and last Saturday of every month. Child would be initially brought to the Court at 10.30 a.m. sharp by the respondent herself or by any her representative as she deems fit. She shall be then taken to Nirmal Kutia and then petitioner would meet him from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Needless to say that expenses of child meeting shall be borne by the petitioner.” Again, the petitioner moved an application before the Guardian Judge, Karnal seeking interim custody of the minor child for a week i.e. 10.4.2011 to 17.4.2011 in connection with her Namkaran ceremony which is being celebrated by way of organizing Akhand Path w.e.f. 10.4.2011 to 17.4.2011. However, vide impugned order the trial court had declined the application. Arguments heard. Record perused. The minor child being less than five years of age is already in the custody of her natural guardian i.e. mother. It would be pertinent to mention here that the custody of the child has been handed over by the petitioner to the respondent of his own out of the court with no conditions to meet her or to take her at any time in connection with such ceremonies as may be organized at his house elsewhere. However, he moved the application for the custody of the minor when he apprehended that Kasni was being shifted to Ludhiana by the respondent, but the respondent has Civil Revision No. 2390 of 2011 (O&M) -3- *** blatantly denied this allegation. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the name of minor 'Kasni' was well though out name as given by the respondent in the school and other records. He has also shown me the records of Bachpan Play School, Karnal wherein the name of the minor child has been recorded as Kasni and, therefore, the question of organizing ceremony in connection with Namkaran after she became three years of age does not arise. The name of the minor child has also been mentioned as 'Kasni' by the respondent in her petition dated 8.4.2009 seeking custody of the child, therefore, it appears that the petitioner appears to be in emotions or wants to create some evidence for the purpose of seeking custody of the minor. While touching the case from another angle, it would be pertinent to mention here that the minor Kasni who is only three years old is in the custody of her natural guardian i.e. mother. The petition with regard to custody of the minor has not so far been decided, therefore, no rights to handle the minor would be created so long as he is not delivered her custody. Any right to decide about the food, clothes, studies, namkaran, marriage or the life style being of incidental consequences to the custody of the minor cannot be determined by the father to whom the custody has not so far been handed over. Thus, he, by his own wish, could not confer any name or hold namkaran ceremony without the consent of the respondent and could not seek the interim custody of the minor on the aforesaid ground. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. April 08, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge