J U D G M E N T

The present petitioner, as a mother of the baby girl by name Renee Dominic Joseph (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Renee"), said to be aged 3 ½ years, has filed this appeal, challenging the order passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "the Trial Court") dated 07-09-2023 on I.A.No.1 in G and WC.No.34/2022, allowing the said I.A. filed under Section 25 (1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the G & WC Act") by the present respondent, who is the father of the said baby Renee, where under the Trial Court, while allowing his application had held that the applicant/respondent was entitled for the custody of the minor child Renee and the appellant was directed to handover the custody of the child to the custody of the respondent/father from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on every Saturdays and Sundays, who shall, in turn, handover the custody of the baby Renee back to the appellant's custody before

5:00 p.m.

2. The contention of the appellant as well the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the child Renee was born to the appellant, seven years after the marriage and the child is greatly attached to her mother. Due to the differences between the parties, the appellant and the respondent are living separately since about two years.

It is the major contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, as canvassed in her argument that, the custody of the child from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for two days in a week would amount to handing over the permanent custody of the child to the respondent and that the appellant apprehends that the respondent may run away with the child or kidnap the child.

It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the present appellant has also filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, in the year 2022 and the same is pending. Under the said circumstance, the impugned order ought not to have been passed by the Trial Court. However, while concluding her submission, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, if the visitation right is modified and confined to a single day in a week, that too under the supervision of the appellant/mother of the child, probably, the appellant may not have any objection for the same.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/father in her brief argument submitted that, admittedly, the parties to the appeal are the natural parents and guardians of the child Renee and that being the case, the child which is only 3 ½ years old should not be deprived of the love and affection by her father. As such, in the interest of the welfare of the child, the father should have a right to the custody, at least during day time of the child, which was rightly considered by the Trial Court in its impugned order, as such, the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

4. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is:

Whether the impugned order under consideration warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

5. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the parties herein was solemnised on the date 31-05-2012 and out of the said wedlock, a girl child was born on the date 09-04-2019 and it was named as 'Renee Dominic Joseph', as such, as on the date, the age of the child would be four years and eight months. According to the learned counsels for the parties, the child is now going to the School and has got five days a week as the School working days. It is also submitted from both side that the mother of the child, who is the appellant herein, is a medical Doctor by profession and the respondent, who is the father of the child, is a software Engineer. The present appellant, as a mother of the child, has filed a petition under Section 7(1)(a) and (b)