IMPORTANT POINT
The paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, as well as the application and interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. The order dated 17.01.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Delhi in G.P. No.61/2020 titled as 'Jagwant Kaur vs. Tirpat Singh Bansal' has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal. By the impugned order dated 17.01.2023, learned Family Court while deciding application under Section 12 of Guardians & Wards Act r/w Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 r/w Section 151 CPC in respect of interim custody of the minor girl child of the parties, has inter alia granted her interim custody to the respondent-wife.

2. The back forth of the case, as spelt out in the present appeal, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 01.11.2017 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies, and out of this wedlock, a girl child was born on 08.01.2019 at Dehradun, at the maternal home of respondent-wife.

3. The appellant in the present appeal has averred that respondent-wife who has been working as Geologist with the Geological Survey of India, has to spend about 100 days in the field in remote areas in a span of 8 months. The appellant has averred that on 07.01.2020, when respondent-wife was away due to field work and had carried the girl child with her, he surprisingly visited them on the birthday of the child and found that one of her colleague was sharing her premises.

4. According to appellant, on 01.03.2020, the respondent-wife went to Pune for her field job, leaving behind the child with the appellant and thereafter, abandoned her. In July, 2020, he claims to have received a call from respondent-wife that she wanted divorce and also wanted to take the child to Dehradun with her.

5. In August, 2020, the appellant-husband filed a Guardianship Petition being G.P. No.24/2020 seeking injunction to restrain the respondent-wife from forcibly taking the child away. On 31.08.2020, a consent order was passed by the learned court wherein the respondent-wife was permitted to have virtual meeting with the child for half an hour every day.

6. Thereafter in December, 2020, a Guardianship Petition being G.P. No.61/2020, under Section 23 of the Guardians and Wards Act, was filed by respondent-wife wherein an application under Section 12 of the Act and Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 was also filed. In the said petition, vide order dated 15.01.2021, learned Family Court allowed the respondent-wife to meet the child in City Mall, Sector-21, Dwarka for one hour. Vide order dated 27.02.2021, the learned Family Court granted custody of the child for one week to the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband thereafter withdrew G.P. 24/2020.

7. The appellant has asserted that pursuant to order dated 27.02.2021, the custody of the child was given to respondent-wife and when the child came back after a week, she was in a pitiable condition and looked extremely weak, traumatised and shocked.

8. Learned Family court vide order dated 02.06.2021 further permitted the respondent-wife to meet the child on every Saturday, except second Saturday in the children's room at Family Courts, Dwarka in the presence of Court Counsellor.

9. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.01.2023, learned Family Court granted interim custody of the child to the respondent-wife till pendency of the petition or till the child attains majority, whichever is earlier, directing the appellant-husband to handover custody of the child within one week.

10. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2023, present appeal has been filed. When this appeal came up for hearing before this Court, vide order dated 02.02.2023 this Court granted respondent-wife interim access to the child, permitting her to take the child to her parents. house at Dehradun and the matter was referred to the mediation.

11. The learned Mediator of Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, vide her report dated 10.03.2023 informed that despite best efforts, no settlement could be arrived at.

12. Parties were not able to reconcile their disputes and so, t