Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbax Singh vs Harminder Kaur on 5 August, 2014
(209) FAO No.2383 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 2383 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.08.2014.
Gurbax Singh ......Appellant.
Versus
Harminder Kaur .....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH
Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.
NAVITA SINGH, J.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2013 passed by the Guardian Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petition filed by respondent - Harminder Kaur for custody of minor son of the parties namely Ramandeep, was dismissed. However, while dismissing the petition, the Court below granted certain rights to the respondent mother for keeping the child with her intermittently. Aggrieved against the said direction of the Court, allowing the respondent to meet the child, the appellant - father came up in appeal.
In the grounds of appeal, it was mentioned that the direction given by the trial Court, that the child will be allowed to be in the company of his mother for a period of seven days during holidays/vacations covering more than two weeks and that the child will be allowed to meet the mother once in a month on some Saturday or Malik Ramesh 2014.08.08 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (209) FAO No.2383 of 2013 (O&M) -2- Sunday, was adverse to the interest of the minor because the minor was not interested in being with his mother. The other assertions in the grounds of appeal regarding the relations between the parties inter se are meaningless and need not be set out here.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court had made effort for meeting of the child with the respondent for which purpose the minor was produced in Court, but he did not even recognize his mother and refused to meet her. It was further contended that none of the parties can compel the child to meet his mother, but since there is a direction by the Court, the appellant was bound to hand over the custody of the child accordingly to the respondent against the wishes of the child which may affect him adversely on the emotional side. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that in the cases relating to custody of children, the welfare of the child is always the primary consideration. The child is now 15 years in age and it will not be possible for him to adjust with the mother for one week during holidays.
Learned counsel for the appellant after making the above submissions, lastly contended that in case this Court was not inclined to reverse the order of the Court below regarding the direction given about the meeting of the minor with the mother, then the direction may be modified allowing the respondent to meet the minor only during day time on weekends or holidays so that the child does not have to spend the night with his mother because he will not be able to adjust and will not be comfortable staying overnight.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued Malik Ramesh 2014.08.08 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (209) FAO No.2383 of 2013 (O&M) -3- that the respondent, being the mother of the child, has the right to meet him and she any way does not have the upper hand because her petition for custody was dismissed and she was only permitted to meet the minor intermittently. No appeal was filed by her against the order dismissing her petition and now at least she should not be stopped from meeting her son as directed by the Court below. Learned counsel lastly contended that very few visits have been allowed by the Court and even when the child will have long vacation, the mother will be meeting him only for one week.
After considering the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent being the mother of the child Ramandeep has a right to meet her son and the time, for which visitation rights have been granted to her, is not at all on higher side. The respondent, though failed to convince the Court below about her right to obtain custody of the minor, cannot be deprived entirely of even seeing her child. It can be said that the trial Court rather passed a well considered order regarding visitation rights of the mother.
So far as the adjustment of the child during his meeting with the mother is concerned, it is felt that rather the father, i.e. the appellant, should play a positive role and try to convince and persuade the child in the right way so that he is comfortable meeting his mother. Any bitterness between the parties on account of failure of the matrimonial alliance, should not come in the way and the appellant should encourage the child to meet the mother as per the directions of the Court so that the child is not deprived of the love of one of the parents in totality. Malik Ramesh 2014.08.08 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (209) FAO No.2383 of 2013 (O&M) -4-
It is only when the child will start spending time with the respondent, he will come to know her and will start making adjustments and may even develop some emotional bond with his mother. In any case, this arrangement is to last till the child attains majority on 14.05.2017, which is only less than three years hence. After that Ramandeep will be free to live wherever he wants.
There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
(M. JEYAPAUL) (NAVITA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
05.08.2014
Ramesh
Whether to be referred to reporter: Yes/No
Malik Ramesh
2014.08.08 10:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh