In a petition challenging an interim custody order under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the child's reluctance to live with the mother despite her petition for custody.
The petition assailing the interim custody order dated 08.08.2024 was dismissed with no merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S. No.115
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ******
Civil Revision No.5478 of 2024 Date of Decision: 20.09.2024 Neero Devi .....Pe++oner Vs. Arvind Kumar .....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the pe��oner.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
In a pe��on filed under the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, (for short, `the Act') pe��oner moved an applica�on under Sec�on 12 of the Act for interim custody of the child, which has been declined by way of the impugned order dated 08.08.2024, though visita�on rights have been granted to her. This order is assailed by the pe��oner before this Court. Pe��oner is the mother whereas respondent is the father of the child.
“Having considered the rival pleas of both the par�es, it is hereby observed that earlier on dated 29.05.2024 on the fall of summer vaca�ons a request was made for giving custody of child to the pe��oner in consequence of which chamber concilia�on of the par�es were held. The undersigned met the child in chamber, who on interven�on of the undersigned tried to meet his mother but was reluctant to accompany her and the court has ordered that the pe��oner would meet the child in summer vaca�ons in presence of his father as the child was resis�ng for mee�ng his mother in his absence. The child was again called in the court at the �me of considera�on of said applica�on and was enquired whether he wants to accompany his mother once in a week at least but he immediately denied and said he did not like her “Mujhe Pasand Nhi Hai”.
There is also statement on record made by the child before CWC authori�es wherein he has expressed his desire to live with his mother.”
RENU 2024.09.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
������������������� ���
September 20, 2024 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
�������������������������
RENU 2024.09.20 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to custody upon challenging the Family Court's order granting interim custody to the father despite visitation rights.
Whether the child's expressed reluctance to live with the mother influences the interim custody order.
Whether the impugned order granting interim custody to the father requires quashing in the light of visitation rights granted to the mother.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Neero Devi
Arvind Kumar
DEEPAK GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
