Rekha Mittal, J.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 07.01.2015 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Ambala whereby the petition under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for custody of minor Vanshikha (daughter of the parties) has been allowed in favour of the respondent-mother.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that marriage of the parties was performed on 22.11.2009 and the minor child was born on 27.08.2011. It has been averred that behaviour of the appellant was not good towards the respondent and he along with his family members started taunting the respondent for bringing inadequate dowry. She was given beatings for her inability to fulfil illegal demand of dowry. The appellant neglected to maintain the respondent and the minor daughter. She was turned out of the matrimonial home on 31.07.2012 and the minor daughter was snatched from her. The appellant is involved in criminal cases and the child is not safe in his hands. A criminal case under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 323 IPC was filed by the respondent and another criminal case pertaining to FIR No.45 under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC is pending in the Court at Pehowa. The respondent being the natural mother is entitled to custody of the child as she can look after needs and necessities of the child properly.

3. The appellant filed the reply raising preliminary objection in regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court as the minor was residing at village Murtzapur, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. He has denied the allegations that the respondent was maltreated on account of demand of dowry or otherwise. The respondent was given love and affection and she left the matrimonial home on the pretext of marriage of her relative and took away the entire jewellery and ornaments gifted by her in-laws. She is a quarrelsome lady who never respected the appellant and his parents and even refused to perform household work. The respondent withdrew from society of the appellant and the minor child. Minor Vanshika is being brought up under care and custody of her father and grand parents in a very nice manner. The appellant is financially sound to maintain the minor in the best possible manner.

4. The controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to custody of minor Vanshika (daughter) on the grounds pleaded in the petition? OPP

2. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition? OPR

3. Relief.

5. The learned trial Court permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. The respondent appeared in the witness box and examined Bhim Singh her father PW2. To rebut evidence of the respondent (petitioner therein), the appellant stepped into the witness box.

6. The learned trial Court on a thoughtful consideration of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by them in support of their respective contentions and rival submissions recorded its conclusion that as welfare of the child lies with the mother, the respondent is entitled to custody of the minor child and accordingly, the appellant was directed to hand over the child to the respondent within a stipulated period. However, the appellant has been granted visitation rights to meet his daughter once in a month preferably on a Sunday after prior intimation to the respondent.

7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by the trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-father of the minor child.

8. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that there is no averment in the petition nor any evidence has been adduced by the respondent to substantiate her claim that she is really and seriously bothered about the care and well being of the child. The respondent left the matrimonial home leaving the child of a tender age (less than one year) at the mercy of