JUDGMENT :

RAMESH KUMARI, J.

1. By way of filing the present appeal, the husband, namely, Amandeep Singh, has challenged the order dated 07.10.2017 vide which the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon (exercising the powers of District Judge under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act) had dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The pleaded case of the appellant before the learned trial Court was that he solemnized marriage with respondent No.1-Amandeep Kaur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife’) in February-2009. One male child was born on 11.10.2009 out of their lawful wedlock. However, the marriage of the appellant with his wife was dissolved on 19.10.2011 by way of decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein it was specifically ordered that wife of the appellant shall handover custody of the minor child on his attaining the age of 5 years, to the appellant-husband. The appellant asserted that the wife-respondent No.1 failed to handover the custody of the minor child to him, despite specific direction in decree dated 19.10.2011.

3. The wife, in her reply filed before the learned trial Court raised objection regarding maintainability of the petition and that the appellant had not come to the Court with clean hands. She denied agreeing to handover the custody of the minor child upon his attaining the age of five years to the appellant and pleaded that if there is any such statement regarding handing over of the custody of the minor child to the appellant, it is a result of misrepresentation as she does not know about the technicalities of law and her statement might have been obtained by misrepresentation.

4. Learned trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 27.07.2015:-

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of the minor child Manpreet Singh? OPP.

2) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

3) Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR

4) Relief.

5. In order to prove his case, the appellant-petitioner examined Rulda Singh as AW1, who tendered his affidavit Ex.AA in his evidence and also proved the original compromise deed Ex.P1. Appellant also examined Jagjit Singh, his father as AW2 and appellant himself stepped into the witness box as AW3. The documents proved by him are compromise deed Ex.P1, birth certificate of minor child-Manpreet Singh as Ex.P2; copy of legal notice dated 27.10.2014 as Ex.P3, postal receipt as Ex.P4; copy of reply to the legal notice dated 12.11.2014 as Ex.P5, certified copy of the petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act as Ex.P6; certified copy of judgment dated 19.10.2011 as Ex.P7 and decree sheet as Ex.P8.

6. Wife-Amandeep Kaur herself stepped into the witness box as RW1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex.RA, wherein she corroborated the averments made in the written statement. She also proved on record copy of school certificate of minor child as Ex.R1. She also examined Nachhattar Singh as RW2 and Binderjit Singh as RW3, who in their respective affidavits corroborated the testimony of respondent-wife.

7. Vide impugned order, the learned trial Court rendered the findings on issue No.1 against the appellant and on issues No.2 and 3 against the respondent-wife and dismissed the petition.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant had drawn attention of this Court towards compromise deed Ex.P1 dated 24.12.2010 vide which the appellant and respondent-wife agreed for mutual divorce and undertaking of the wife that after completion of five years of the age of minor child, she will handover the custody of the minor child to the appellant (father) and the appellant shall be liable for the upbringing, marriage etc. of the son and giving him due share from his property.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our a