JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Singh, J. 

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaithal (for short 'Family Court'), whereby, the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'Act') filed by the appellant, was dismissed. However, he was granted visitation rights to meet the minor once in a month at a common place and the time to be fixed at the convenience of the parties.

2. The aforesaid petition had been filed by the appellant asserting therein that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 05.07.2006 according to Hindu rites, and out of the said wedlock, two daughters and one son were born. It was further asserted that both the daughters were in the custody of the appellant, whereas, the son was in the custody of the respondent. The respondent had performed second marriage with one Ravinder Kumar without getting their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce. The respondent had failed to maintain or provide basic amenities to the minor son. It was further pleaded that she had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which was still pending. The appellant had filed a complaint under Sections 494, 506, 120-B IPC, which was also pending. A panchayat was convened wherein, the respondent had assured to allow the appellant to meet his son regularly, but when he tried to meet his son, she had not only misbehaved with him, but had also given him beatings and threatened that she would lodge a false complaint against the appellant, and kill the minor son. It was further alleged that future of the minor son was not secured in the hands of the respondent and that it would be in the welfare of the minor, if his custody was given to the appellant.

3. Upon notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed her written statement pleading therein that the appellant was a landless person and unable to fulfill the necessities of the minor child. It was further asserted that she was providing better education and other necessities to the minor child. The allegations regarding convening of panchayat and not treating the minor child with love and affection were denied.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Family Court:-

'1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of minor son Devan from the respondent, on the ground taken in the petition? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR Relief.'

5. In evidence, the appellant himself appeared as PW1 and tendered documents Exhibits P1 to P28 and Mark-A. On the other hand, the respondent herself appeared as RW1 besides tendering documents Exhibits R1 to R7 and Mark-A.

6. Learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the rival contentions and evidence on record, has dismissed the custody petition, as noticed above.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the respondent is not in a position to provide better future prospects to the minor child, and she is not having sufficient income to take care of him or meet his basic necessities. It is further argued that in respect of the obscene acts of the respondent, he had lodged an FIR No.755 dated 25.12.2020, under Sections 354, 506 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, and after trial, the respondent was convicted of the offences under Section 201 IPC and Section 12 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 01 year and 03 years, respectively. It is thus, argued that when the respondent is having criminal antecedents, the custody of the minor child is not safe and secure with her, and therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have granted the custody of the child to the appellant.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order.

9. The only question that requires consideration by thi