IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 04, 2025 Padam Chand and another .….Appellants versus Govind Ram ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present:- Mr. Jarnail Singh Saneta, Advocate for the appellants.

*****

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court at Punhana (for short ‘Family Court’), whereby, a petition under Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘Act’) filed by the appellants for the custody of the minor children, namely, Bhumi and Nandni, was dismissed.

2. The aforesaid petition had been filed by the appellants being grand-father and father, respectively, for the custody of the minor children. Respondent No.2 in that petition was given up. It was alleged that the appellants were residing at Hat Bazar Punhana along with their family members and the respondents (maternal grandparents of the minor) had taken the minors to their residents at Nuh when the appellants had been pursuing a false case. It was further alleged that the mother of the minors, namely, Rajbala @ Rajni had already expired. The respondents were not providing basic facilities to the minors and that they had no source of income so as to take proper care of the minors. It was further alleged that respondent No.1 was busy in running the shop and he had no time to take care of the minor children. Both the respondents were infirm and old aged persons. On the contrary, the appellants were running two shops at Punhana and they had good source of income. Father of the minors was a Government teacher.

Accordingly, custody of the minors was sought for.

3. Upon notice, respondent No.1 entered appearance and filed his reply. It was pleaded that minor children were in the custody of their real aunt (chachi/ mausi, namely, Smt. Mamta), who was wife of Pankaj (real brother of appellant No.2 and son of appellant No.1). It was denied that minors were residing with respondent No.1. It was yet further asserted that the minors were living in lawful custody of their mausi/ chachi. It was also pointed out that the appellants along with Pankaj had murdered the mother of the minor children, and in this regard, FIR No.237 dated 09.07.2020, under Sections 323, 498-A and 302 IPC was registered against the appellants and the case was still pending. During course of proceedings before the learned Family Court, respondent No.2 was given up vide order dated 18.08.2021.

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 get custody of the minor children namely Bhumi and Nandni? OPR

2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR

3. Relief.”

5. In evidence, the appellants examined Bijender Singh as PW1 whereas they had examined themselves as PW2 and PW3, besides examining Sahid as PW4, and had also tendered documents Exhibits P1 to P3 and Mark A to Mark F. On the other hand, respondent No.1 examined himself as RW1 and had also tendered documents R1 to R3 and Mark R4 to R22.

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 appellants, while asserting the impugned order, argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is legally unsustainable inasmuch as while passing the impugned order, learned Family Court has totally ignored that the appellants are the grandfather and father of the minors and that they are the best persons to look after and take care of the minor children. It is also argued that while passing the impugned order, learned Family Court has totally ignored that respondent No.1 has no sufficient sources of income to provide basic necessities to the minor children. It is further argued that the minor children are no