Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Jeyapaul
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg
FAO No. 24 of 2015 (O&M)
Gurmukh Singh & Anr.
v
Amardeep Kaur & Anr.
{Decided on 14/05/2015}
For the Appellants:Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate.
Headnote:Custody of Child—Working mother--There are lot of attractive alternative facilities available in the present scenario to take care of the children of the employed mothers.
(A) Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, S.25 & S.10--Custody of Child--Death of father of children aged 5 years--Custody given to mother against claim of grand-parents--Contention rejected that mother is working lady and no one is there to take care in her absence during day time--Held; a mother cannot sacrifice her job, more especially in the absence of her husband, just to take care of her children throughout the day--There are lot of attractive alternative facilities available in the present scenario to take care of the children of the employed mothers. (Para 15)
(B) Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, S.8--Custody of Child--Death of father of children--Custody given to mother against claim of grand parents--Financial capacity of mother--Even assuming that mother had not invested the amount, received as compensation on death of her husband, she has got enough time in her long length of service to make financial provisions for her children.
(C) Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, S.8--Custody of Child--Death of father of children--Custody given to mother against claim of grand parents--Moral Values--Grand father retired as police inspector and was involved in bribery case but was acquitted on benefit of doubt--Held; even if the case ended in acquittal, it may not be conducive for the children to build a robust moral value if they are permitted to stay in the house of the grand parents. (Para 19)
(D) Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, S.8--Custody of Child--Death of father of children-- Custody given to mother against claim of grand parents--Held; mother has got wherewithal to educate the minor children, showering love and affection on them, would be the best choice to send the children in her custody. (Para 21)
Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.:- CM-9925-CII-2015
For the reasons set out in the application, the application is allowed.
CM-9926-CII-2015
Heard both sides.
The respondent has no objection to place on record Annexure P2 and P3. We also find that Annexure P2 and P3 are only court proceedings and the judgment passed by the competent Court. Therefore, the appellant is permitted to place on record Annexure P2 and P3. The application is allowed, accordingly.
FAO No. 24 of 2015
1. The 1st respondent Amardeep Kaur, widow of Late Shri Harpreet Singh, filed a petition under Section 25 read with Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act claiming custody of minors Tejbir Singh and Jotbir Singh, both aged 5 years being twins. The trial Court allowed the petition and directed the appellants to hand over the custody of the minors to the 1st respondent within two months from the date of the order. The said order passed by the trial Court is under challenge before this Court.
2. The 1st respondent contended in her petition that she was blessed with twins, namely, Tejbir Singh and Jotbir Singh, aged 5 years. Unfortunately, her husband Harpreet Singh died in a road accident that took place on 12.12.2010. Thereafter the relationship between the appellants and the 1st respondent remained strained. She was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 4.5.2011. It is her contention that she being the natural mother is entitled to have the custody of those two children. It is submitted that she is an educated lady, serving as Inspector, Grade-I in Civil Supplies Department, Punjab. She is getting a salary of Rs.26,000/- per month. In other words, she has got sufficient source of income to maintain the minors. Therefore, she claimed custody of the minor children in their best interest.
3. The appellants have contended in their reply that the 1st respondent on account of her duty from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. may not be in a position to take care of the needs of the children. The 1st appellant has retired as an Inspector from the Police Department while the 2nd appellant is a home maker. Therefore, they can look after and maintain the children very well. 1st respondent has some medical problem in her brain and as a result of which she is under continuous medical treatment. The minor children are in the custody of the appellants right from their birth. They have sufficient resources to give comforts and education to the children. Therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the 1st respondent.
4. On the side of the 1st respondent, she was examined as PW1, Dhian Singh, an official hailing from the office of District Controller, Ropar (District Food and Supply) was examined as PW2 and Gurdeep Kaur was examined as PW3. On the side of the appellants, the 1st appellant was examined as RW1 and the 2nd appellant was examined as RW2. Paramjit Singh from the Food and Supplies Office, Roopnagar was examined as RW3.
5. The trial Court having adverted to the oral evidence and the documents exhibited by both the parties came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent is a fit person to have custody of the minor children.
6. It is found that the 1st respondent is the mother of the minor children Tejbir Singh and Jotbir Singh. They being twins were five years old when the petition was filed. There is no dispute to the fact that the minor children who were born on 10.8.2006 were brought up by their father Harpreet Singh and mother Amardeep Kaur till 12.12.2010. After the death of Harpreet Singh in a road accident, the 1st respondent left the matrimonial house on 4.5.2011 on account of some discord with the appellants herein. The present petition under the Guardian and Wards Act claiming custody of the minor children had been filed by the 1st respondent on 17.8.2011 itself. In other words, there was no laxity on the part of the 1st respondent in claiming custody of the children.
7. It is also an admitted fact that 1st respondent is serving as Inspector-Grade-
