Mrs. Lisa Gill, J.: - The appellants, Neeru and her husband – Parveen Kumar, have preferred this appeal impugning judgment dated 04.05.2015 passed by the Guardian Judge-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula whereby petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) filed by the respondents, Arun Purang and Ritikia, has been allowed, granting them custody of their minor son, Mayank, being his natural parents.

2. Present is an unfortunate case, where two sisters and their respective husbands are agitating their right for custody of the minor child, Mayank. It is important to note that appellant No.1, Neeru wife of Parveen Kumar, and respondent No.1, Ritikia wife of Arun Purang, are real sisters, Neeru being the elder sister.

3. The pleaded case of the respondent-petitioners, is that they were married on 01.05.2004, their marriage being registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Jayanagar, Bangalore. They have been residing at Bangalore since then and are blessed with three children, namely, Umika Purang born on 05.06.2005, Devesh Purang born on 29.05.2009 and Mayank Purang born on 11.08.2010 at St. Philomina Hospital, Bangalore. Appellants, Neeru and her husband, did not have any children. Appellant, Neeru, visited Bangalore in the month of September, 2010 and stayed with the respondents for one month. She requested respondents, Ritikia and her husband, to give their new-born child, Mayank, to her, but her request was turned down. She however became obsessed with the idea of taking the child and requested Ritikia, that she be allowed to take the child for a period of one month. Family members pressurized the respondent, Ritikia, to accept the said request to the extent that even their mother requested the respondents to give the child to appellant, Neeru, for one month as Neeru was allegedly harbouring the idea of committing suicide at that time.

4. It is in these circumstances that appellant, Neeru, was permitted to take the child for one month. When Ritikia asked for the custody of the minor child in January, 2011, appellant, Neeru, requested for extension of time and promised to return the child in September, 2011. However, custody of the child was not handed back on the plea that some vaccination was to be completed and thereafter, appellants would come to Bangalore to handover the child. Still custody of the minor child, Mayank, was not handed over. The appellants are alleged to have gone underground to evade the respondents.

5. The respondents filed a suit, OS No.4378/2011 for declaration to the effect that they are biological parents of minor Mayank, thus, entitled to his custody. Said suit was however dismissed on the ground that without conducting a DNA test, it is not possible to decree the suit. It is specifically pleaded that the respondents never executed an adoption deed and thus, appellants are in illegal custody of the minor child. Petition No.195 under the Act was preferred by the respondents, claiming custody of the minor child before the Family Judge at Bangalore, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present petition under Section 25 of the Act was preferred at Panchkula by the respondents, the natural parents of the minor, Mayank.

6. The appellants contested the said petition questioning the maintainability and jurisdiction of the court as well as alleging concealment of true facts. It was averred that they filed a civil suit No.530 dated 06.02.2012 for issuance of permanent injunction against the natural parents regarding custody of the minor child. In the written statement, it is specifically averred that the natural parents did not want a third child as their family was complete whereas, the appellants despite having taken extensive treatment could not bear any child. It was decided that the third child of the respondents would be handed over to the appellants, who would raise him as their own and the natural parent