-1-

F.A.O. No.397 of 2010.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

...

Date of Decision: February 02, 2011.

F.A.O. No.397 of 2010.

Krishan

.......Appellant

Versus

Anita alias Neeta

........Respondent

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.

1.

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see

the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

Present:

Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate,

for the respondent.

-.-

MOHINDER PAL, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

judgment dated 28.8.2009 passed by the learned Guardian

Judge (Exercising the Powers of District Judge), Jind, whereby the

petition filed by appellant Krishan under Section 25 of the

-2-

F.A.O. No.397 of 2010.

Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of Hindu

Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, for custody of the minor girl

child Pooja, who was born on 20.8.2000 out of the wedlock

between the appellant and respondent, was dismissed.

I have heard Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate,

appearing for the appellant and Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate,

appearing for the respondent and have perused the impugned

judgment.

Presently, the custody of baby Pooja is with her

mother Anita alias Neeta (respondent). On a petition filed by

the respondent for divorce, she was granted ex parte divorce.

Proceedings initiated by the appellant for setting aside the ex

parte decree of divorce are stated to be pending before the

trial Court. It is admitted position that the appellant and his

brothers are facing criminal trial under Sections 498-A, 406,

323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, on the allegations of cruelty etc.

conducted by them upon the respondent. Appellant has also

been saddled with the order of maintenance to the extent of

Rs.800/- per month i.e Rs.500/- per month for the respondent

and Rs.300/- per month for the minor daughter in proceedings

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the

respondent. The minor daughter Pooja is residing with the

respondent since May, 2003 at the house of the father of the

respondent. There is no evidence on record that the appellant ever

tried to rehabilitate the respondent by convening any Panchayat

-3-

F.A.O. No.397 of 2010.

or by involving respectables of both the families. Also, the

appellant has not been able to lead any evidence that the minor

is not being kept properly by the respondent. The Jamabandi

(Exhibit P.2), which was adduced in evidence by the appellant,

shows that he (appellant) is owner in possession of

approximately 2 acres of land. The appellant had mortgaged

major portion of the said land for a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-

vide Rapat No.26 dated 31.12.2008. Therefore, the financial

position of the appellant cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be

said to be sound. The age of baby Pooja is now more than

ten years and five months, she having born on 20.8.2000. She

is studying in a school at Village Laun in Class IV, as is evident

from her school certificate Exhibit D.X. The learned Guardian

Judge has mentioned in the impugned judgment that he had

interviewed baby Pooja in his Chamber and she expressed her

desire to stay with her mother if the reunion of her parents was not

possible. The Guardian Judge observed that baby Pooja is an

intelligent and sensible girl, who is alive of the matrimonial turmoil

of her parents. Practically speakin