Poonam Sood v. Deepak Sood

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anamika Mehra, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The wife-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the Guardian Judge, Jalandhar, whereby instead of giving her the interim custody of her minor daughter, Diksha Sood, she was granted only the visitation rights. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 4.7.2004 at Jalandhar and out of the said wedlock, a daughter, namely, Diksha, was born on 29.9.2005. It is the custody of the said minor daughter which is bone of contention between the parties. On an application having been filed by the petitioner-wife for interim custody of the minor daughter, under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Guardian Judge, Jalandhar, vide the CR No.

4674 of 2008 -2- impugned order dated 30.7.2008 had allowed the petitioner to visit the minor on third Saturday of each month at House No. 655-A, Sector-8, Panchkula. It was further ordered that in case the petitioner has any apprehension, she can move an application before the SHO, Police Station Sector-8, Panchkula, and thereafter the respondent should produce the minor at the placed fixed by the SHO with the consent of the parties so that the petitioner-wife could feel safe at Panchkula. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the matters of custody of the minor children, where relations of the spouses are estranged , the welfare of the child should always be kept in mind by the courts, but in the present case the Guardian Court is not justified in denying the custody of the minor daughter to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. The Guardian Judge court while deciding the application of the petitioner for interim custody of the child had granted visiting rights to the petitioner by ordering that she can meet the minor on third Saturday of each month. The relevant observations of the trial court as recorded in para 4 of its order, read thus:- “4. The relationship between the parties is not denied by the respondent. Petitioner is mother of minor Diksha. So, minor is nearly three years old and custody of minor is with the father. Respondent is residing at Panchkula with minor Diksha, whereas CR No. 4674 of 2008 -3- petitioner is residing at Jalandhar. The application for interim custody has been resisted by the respondent. So, as such question regarding handing over the custody of minor to the petitioner cannot be allowed as it will amount to deciding the petition.

Interest of justice requires that applicant should have approach to minor as she is mother of minor and interest of minor also requires that she should get love and affection of both of her parents. So, considering this fact, the petitioner is allowed to visit the minor on third Saturday of the month. She can meet the minor at 655-A, Sector-8, Panchkula. If she has any apprehension, then she can move the application before SHO of Police Station Sector-8, Panchkula, and thereafter respondent should produce the minor at the place fixed by the SHO with the consent of both the parties, so that applicant can feel safe at Panchkula.” In view of the above observations of the trial court, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The main case for custody of the child is pending before the Guardian court in which as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, evidence of the petitioner had already been concluded.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent shall CR No. 4674 of 2008 -4- also conclude his evidence within four months. In these circumstances, the Guardian court is directed to grant four months' time to the respondent-husband to conclude his evidence and thereafter to dispose of the petition expeditiously, latest by 31.3.2010. November 16, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE