IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.03.2025 DEEPAK BANSAL ...Appellant Versus RUPALI ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present:- Mr. Bhavnik Mehta, Advocate for appellant.

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated

25.09.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula (for short ‘the Family Court’), whereby the petition under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the Act’), filed by the appellant was dismissed, but he was granted visiting rights qua the minor children as stipulated in para No.22 of the impugned order.

2. The aforesaid, petition had been filed by the appellant, inter alia, pleading therein that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2008, and out of the said wedlock, two children were born, who were in the custody of respondent. It was alleged that the respondent was a spendthrift lady and in 2009, she compelled the appellant to shift to Panchkula. On 20.03.2011, the appellant shifted to Hyderabad, but due to the acts and conduct of the respondent, he could not join his job at Hyderabad. Father of the appellant retired on 31.01.2011 and the respondent had pressurized him to ask for money from his father for starting the business. In July, 2012, the respondent got the appellant separated from his parents and respondent stopped maintaining any relation with the parents of the appellant. In May, 2013, the respondent left the rented accommodation without the consent of the appellant and started residing with her parents. A Panchayat was convened, wherein it was decided that the appellant would not meet his parents and bring back the respondent. On the request of the respondent, the parties shifted to Sector 10, Panchkula. On 04.12.2016, the appellant woke up in the midnight and saw the respondent chatting on her mobile and when she was confronted, she shouted at him and had also misbehaved with him. He found the respondent to be in extramarital affairs. The respondent had intentionally not mentioned the name of the appellant in the School record of the children and had only mentioned herself to be a single parent of the children. It was further alleged that the respondent had deserted him since 09.12.2016 and had deprived the minor children of the fatherly love and affection and that she was living in adultery with one Shivam Bhatnagar. She had also filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant and his family members, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2018. She had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. The appellant had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act and an application under Section 26 of the Act, was allowed by the Court vide order dated 20.10.2018 and the appellant was permitted to meet the children. It was further alleged that the respondent was working as a Bank Manager in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kalka and the minor children were not able to take care of them and the respondent was not in a position to devote time for their proper care and welfare. Thus, the appellant had sought custody of the minor children.

3. Upon notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed her written statement, admitting the factum of marriage and birth of the children. It was alleged that in order to get rid of the respondent, the appellant had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act and when an application under Section 26 of the Act, was filed for maintenance of the minor children, the same had been strongly opposed by the appellant. It was further asserted that the appellant had no love and affection for the minor children and he had deserted them and their mother i.e., respondent since 09.12.2016. It was further alleged that the respondent along with the minor children was residing in a rented accommodation at