IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.02.2026 SURJIT CHAUDHARY …. Appellant Versus SHIVANI KUMARI …. Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present : Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

****

RAMESH KUMARI,J.

1. By way of filing the present appeal, the appellant-husband has challenged the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 vide which the custody of minor son has been handed over to the respondent-mother as an interim arrangement during the pendency of petition under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

2. Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate appeared and has filed his Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent-wife.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband contended that the learned trial Court wrongly handed over the interim custody of the minor child to the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife is habitual of consuming white chalk and mud etc. and also habitual of stealing gold and silver ornaments as well as the cash amount. On 23.06.2025, she was seen stealing Mangal Sutra of one of the relatives and when she was asked to return the same, she did not return and threatened to commit suicide. She was also caught in objectionable circumstances with one Krishan son of Ompal. The appellant-husband has filed divorce petition against respondent-wife and respondent-wife has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, he vehemently prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that custody of minor son has been granted as an interim measure during the pendency of the petition under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. False and baseless allegations have been levelled against the respondent- wife only to get divorce. One daughter is already residing with the respondent- wife and she is taking care of her. He vehemently prayed for dismissal of present appeal.

5. Undisputedly, marriage of the appellant-husband was soleminized with respondent-wife on 26.02.2020. They are blessed with two children i.e. one son and one daughter. The daughter is also living with the respondent- wife. Custody of minor son who was born on 09.10.2021 has been handed over to respondent-wife vide impugned order dated 16.12.2025. Learned trial Court rightly observed that the child was below 5 years of age at the time of filing of the petition. The child being tender age, it was for the paramount welfare of the child that his custody has been handed over to his mother who is already looking after and upbringing one daughter born from the lawful wedlock of the parties. There is no allegation against the respondent-wife that she is not properly looking after the minor daughter. If the respondent-wife can look after the minor daughter, certainly she can look after the minor son also. Moreover, by granting the interim custody of minor son to his mother, the minor son will have the company of his sister also, thus fostering the sibling bond. There is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order specially when the interest of the appellant-husband are also taken care by granting him visitation rights i.e. once in a month.

6. In view of above discussion, the appeal in hand is dismissed. Any observation while deciding the appeal in hand shall have no bearing on the merits of the case, pending before the learned Family Court.

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL) (RAMESH KUMARI)

JUDGE JUDGE

03.02.2026

Jyoti-IV