IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.175 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.7.2009 Sarbati. -----Appellant Vs. Phoolwati -----Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition seeking a direction for custody of two minor children. 2. The appellant is widow of Kuldeep Singh who died in an accident leaving behind two minor children Ashish Kumar and Pooja, who were with their grandmother (mother of the deceased father of the children). The petition was contested by the grandmother with the plea that the children were not in her illegal custody and they were being brought up with love and affection and the appellant herself had abandoned them. The police had summoned the children alongwith her and verified that the children did not want to live with her. Report to this LPA No.175 of 2008 effect, Annexure R-2, was made. Litigation with regard to property was pending between the sisters of the deceased father of the minors and the appellant. 3. Learned Single Judge held that highly disputed questions whether welfare of the children called for custody to be handed over to the appellant mother or to be continued with their grandmother, should be adjudicated upon only after evidence in appropriate proceedings. Even though in a case whether facts do not require adjudication, a habeas corpus petition may be entertained, the present case called for adjudication of disputed questions. Reference was also made to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumedha Nagpal v. State of Delhi and othersb (2000)9 SCC 745. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also tried to resolve the matter by talking to the parties in the chamber. There being serious dispute between the parties, the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. We have not gone into the question of maintainability of the appeal, though the said question was raised by learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 17, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 2