Partly allowed

Ram Chander v. Kavita

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Oct 2012FAO/4540/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal and the application for condonation of delay against a family court order dismissing a petition for custody of a minor under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay were dismissed as withdrawn upon prompting the appellant to file a fresh petition.

Ram Chander Vs Kavita — Child Custody and Guardianship | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.4540 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.4540 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: October 17, 2012

Ram Chander

… Appellant.

Versus

Kavita

… Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH

¶11

Present: Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

S.S. SARON, J.

¶13

The appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, whereby the petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act) filed by the appellant Ram Chander for the custody of minor Rashmi @ Roshni has been dismissed. Alongwith the appeal, CM No.19681-CII of 2012 has been filed, seeking condonation of 936 days' delay in filing the appeal.

¶14

The appellant Ram Chander is the grandfather of the minor Rashmi @ Roshni whose custody has been sought. Rajender Kumar son of the appellant Ram Chander was married to Smt. Kavita (respondent). Rajender Kumar died about a year earlier to the filing of the petition under Section 6 of the 1956 Act, which was filed on 02.5.2008. At that time,

¶15

FAO No.4540 of 2012

¶16

¶17

Rashmi @ Roshni was less than 4 years of age.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, has inter-alia observed in paragraph 15 of the judgment that the age of Rashmi @ Roshni is stated to be 3 years. It is further observed that as per the provision of Section 6(a) of the 1956 Act, the custody of the minor, who has not completed the age of 5 years, is to be ordinarily with the mother. It is submitted that now Rashmi @ Roshni is more than 5 years of age. Therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal as also the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal so as to enable the applicant-appellant to file a fresh petition, in accordance with law.

¶19

The appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal are dismissed as withdrawn.

¶20

( S.S. SARON ) JUDGE

¶21

( S.P. BANGARH ) October 17, 2012 JUDGE sk

Ram Chander v. Kavita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chander v. Kavita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surinder Kaur and Ors.

Bachi Devi Vs State of Punjab

Jangpal Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Lalit Vs State of Hry.

Labh Singh Vs State of Punjab