- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2011. Smt. Juliana Mendes alias Juliana Pereira, r/o. H. No.58/6, Arao, Pomburpa, Bardez Goa. …....... Petitioner. Versus Shri Praveen S. Pereira, Son of Pyarelal Pereira, Major, Indian National, R/o. House No.872, Naikawaddo, Aldona, Bardez Goa. …....... Respondent. Ms. Caroline Collasso, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 27 th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Caroline Collasso, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Valmiki Menezes, learned Advocate for the respondent. - 2 - 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner/wife challenging the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Fast Track Court, Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 112/2008 by which the lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal against an order dated 18.8.2008 passed in Matrimonial Petition no. 14/2007/C by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa. By the said Order the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for seeking interim custody of minor child Ms. Karol Lucy. 4. The respondent herein filed the petition for divorce against the petitioner on the ground of ill treatment. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. The petitioner also filed counter claim and claimed custody of minor child. The trial Court by an order dated 18.8.2008 dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the petitioner was suffering from paranoid Schizophrenia. The petitioner herein - 3 - preferred an appeal against the said order passed by the learned Trial Court. The appellate Court has modified the order passed by the trial Court and the respondent has been directed to give the custody of minor child to the petitioner on all Sundays except 2nd Sunday of every month from 8.00a.m to 8.00p.m. 5. Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Schizophrenia is not a disease and the same can be cured by treatment and presently petitioner stands cured of Schizophrenia and as petitioner being mother of the minor child is entitled for custody. 6. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that no case is made out for interference. 7. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court discloses that the lower appellate Court has modified the order as stated above and has further permitted the parties to move the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa - 4 - for modification of the order after a period of two years, if there is change in circumstances. 8. In view of the statement made by Ms. Collasso that presently petitioner is not suffering from Schizophrenia and there is no impediment for the petitioner to have custody of minor child, I deem it appropriate to modify the period of two years mentioned in the impugned order to one year so that learned Civil Judge, Senior Division may consider afresh the changed circumstance, if any, and pass an appropriate order regarding custody of minor child. It is well settled that in respect of an order passed with regard to custody of minor child there is no finality and the same can be modified if there is change in circumstance. 9. In view of the above, impugned order stands modified. The period of two years mentioned in operative part of the impugned order is reduced to one year. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application placing before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa the circumstance, if any, justifying an order of custody of minor child to the petitioner. In case the - 5 - petitioner chooses to place on record such circumstance, the respondent would be entitled to give his say. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division shall pass an appropriate order after considering the materials produced by the rival parties and after ascertaining the wishes of the minor child, if the learned Judge considers proper to do so. 10. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*