( 1 ) STATISTICS available from the District Court suggest that there has been a steady increase in matrimonial cases for the last several years. This would naturally result in an increase in custody cases. Battles for the custody of children usually leave a taste of unpleasantness, if not in the child then in the parents. If litigating parents are able to sort out their disputes amicably, it is so much the better for them and for their children; but if that is not possible, there should be available some facility of professional Counselling.

( 2 ) FOR this, we need to seriously consider implementing the Family Courts act, 1984 in Delhi but if that cannot be done, then we need to adopt at least the principles laid down in the Family Courts Act and incorporate them into our justice delivery system. In addition, there is a need for organizations such as the delhi Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee to broad-base its volunteers and include professional Counsellors who can render useful assistance in cases involving matrimonial disputes and custody of children so that the unpleasantness is minimised, if not eliminated. The endeavour of the justice delivery system should be to build human relationships, or at least keep them intact, and in any event, to prevent them from being damaged beyond repair.

( 3 ) THIS preface has been necessary because of what seems to me to be an avoidable custody litigation between the parties in this case.

( 4 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th December, 2003 passed in an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in Guardianship Petition No. 94/2002. By the impugned order, it was held, inter alia, that since Master Aadit, the minor child of the parties is studying in a school of repute in Chandigarh, it would not be appropriate to change his school or shift his custody from the Respondent mother to the Petitioner father.

( 5 ) STRICTLY speaking, the impugned order has outlived its utility inasmuch as the petitioner had prayed for custody of the minor child of the parties Master aadit so that preparations could be made for his admission to Vasant Valley school, New Delhi for the academic year 2004 onwards. Now that the academic session has commenced, it is too late for Aadit to get admission in Vasant Valley school, but this is quite apart from the merits of the impugned order.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, to avoid prolonging the agony of both parries, the matter was heard on merits so that there could be some finality to the issue about where master Aadit should study in Chandigarh where the respondent resides or in kolkata where the petitioner resides or in Delhi where neither of them reside.

( 7 ) DURING the pendency of this case, efforts were made by the parties to arrive at some kind of a settlement but nothing seems to have worked out even though the matter was listed from time-to-time on several dates. Eventually, the matter came to be listed before me on 12th October, 2004 when learned counsel for the parties stated that there is no possibility of a settlement. Accordingly, I heard arguments on 14th and 15th October, 2004 when judgment was reserved. On conclusion of the hearing on 15th October, 2004, I had suggested to learned Counsel for the parties that it may be in the interest of the child if some sort of a settlement is arrived at between the parties. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to 27th October, 2004 when the parties were also present in Court. After briefly discussing the matter with the parties, it appeared that there was a possibility of a settlement of the matrimonial dispute between the parties but it was not possible for the parties to arrive at any settlement relating to the custody of the minor child. Both the parties wanted to have custody of Aadit. This, therefore, left me with no option but to decide the matter on merits.

( 8 ) IN view of the fact that this petition was pending, due to talks fo