Harjit Kaur v. Gagandeep Kaur and Anr

IN

Harjit Kau Gagandee

CORAM

Present :

ALKA SA

¶1order date minor chi child.

¶2No.1 was Out of the

12.07.202 due to dr petition u Act, 1890 properly w THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

ur Versus ep Kaur & Anr. M : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocat Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate ARIN, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petitio ed 29.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) ild (respondent No.1 herein) w Brief facts relevant to the p married to Bikramjit Singh son e wedlock one baby girl was bor 20 the husband of Gagandeep K rug overdose. It is the case set under Section 7 read with Secti 0 for custody of the minor daugh with her and used to taunt her fo NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CR-1782-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.05.202 ... Petitione s ... Responden E ALKA SARIN te for the petitioner.

for the respondent No.1. on has been filed challenging whereby the natural mother of was granted interim custody of present lis are that the respond n of Rajinder Singh on 06.01.20 rn on 15.01.2020. Unfortunately, Kaur (respondent No.1 herein) d up by the respondent No.1 in ion 25 of the Guardian and Wa hter that her in-laws did not beh or not bringing requisite dowry a

r(s) nt(s) dent

¶018, on died her ards since 14.0 responden (responde police com against th applicatio applicatio concealm grandmot up the mi No.1 her comprom was speci with the g seek the

29.02.202 be handed revision p

¶3petitioner since birt marriage daughter ( after the d herein) an agreed tha

05.2023 she was residing in her nt No.1 wanted to meet her daug ent No.2 herein) are stated to h mplaint against her and forcibl he will of the respondent No.1 on for interim custody of the on was opposed by the petit ment. It was, however, averred t ther had great love and affection inor with utmost care. It was f rein was to solemnize her s mise was entered into between th ifically mentioned that the min grandparents and the mother (r custody of the minor child. Th 24 (Annexure P-5) directed that d over to the mother (responden petition. Learned counsel for the p r is the grandmother who has b th and that the respondent No.1 and that all the properties of her (minor child). It is further the co death of her son, the petitioner nd respondent No.1 had entered at the minor child would remain

parental house. After that when ghter, the petitioner and her husba have abused her and filed a fa y took custody of the minor ch

¶1Alongwith the said petition, minor child was also filed. T tioner herein on the ground that the petitioner herein being for the minor and she was bring further averred that the respond econd marriage and therefore e parties on 01.07.2023 in whic nor child would continue to res respondent No.1 herein) would he Family Court vide order da interim custody of the minor ch nt No.1 herein). Hence, the pres petitioner would contend that been looking after the minor ch 1 has since solemnized her seco r son is to be inherited by the gra ontention of the learned counsel t and her husband (respondent N into a compromise whereby it w in the custody of the petitioner a alse an The of ging dent e a ch it side not ated sent ond and-that No.2 that the pr daughter family.

¶4contend t husband children w deserves. Court in (Civil) 36

5.

¶6the mothe argument entered in the custod comprom mother w child who

to come u love and a the matte Court and before th mediation

roperty of the son of the petition and that the respondent No.1 w Per contra, the learned cou that the respondent No.1 has has a daughter from the prev would be brought up by her w The learned counsel has furthe the case of Nathi Ram & Anr 68]. I have heard the learned coun In the present case the dispu er of the minor child who are of the counsel for the petitioner nto, therefore, the mother (respo dy of the child forever cannot mise is yet to be tested. Further s ould be best suited to look after o is of the tender age of 4 years. This Court made multiple effo up with a co-parenting plan whe affection of both the mother and er was also sent to the Mediatio d a Family Counsellor and a Chi he Mediation and Conciliatio n failed, this Court once again sp

ner would be inherited by the gra would have no connection with unsel for respondent No.1 wo since got married. However, vious marriage and that both with love and affection that a ch er relied upon the judgment of t r. Vs. Usha Rani [2013 (1) R nsel for the parties. ute is between the grandmother a e in Court over the custody. T r that since a compromise had b ondent No.1) should be deprived t be accepted. The veracity of still, the respondent No.1 being the needs and welfare of the mi

orts in trying to persuade the par ere the child would benefit from d the grandmother. For this purp on and Conciliation Centre of t ild Counsellor were also associa on Centre. Thereafter, since poke to the parties to try and se and-ould her this CR The een d of inor rties pose this ated there was plan for th and agree the petitio

a tender a the best p affection underestim affection the mothe been boug provide a mother ha stated tha counsel fo denied, th property o

¶7order dat responden to Gurdas also intera facilitated Gurdaspu

s a possibility of both the parti he minor child. Though the resp eable to the same, however, the p oner did not come to the Court on The date of birth of the minor age and she needs the love and person to look after the needs a child gets from grandp mated in any manner, however, that a child gets from his/her mo er can provide a conducive env ght to the notice of this Court th healthy environment to the mino This Court was concerned a ad now sought custody in view o at the entire property would dev for the respondent No.1 states th here is no question of the resp on the basis of the compromise. In view of the above, no fau ted 29.02.2024 passed by the nt No.1, as directed by the Famil spur on each and every date of h act with the grandmother (petiti d in the Mediation and Conci ur.

ies coming up with a co-parent pondent No.1 was open to the i petitioner was not inclined. Rath n 20.05.2024 or today. child is 15.01.2020. The child is affection of a mother. A mothe of a child. No doubt the love parents cannot be discarded at the same time the care, love other is at a totally different leve ironment to the child. Nothing hat the mother is not in a position or child in the present case. as to whether the respondent No of the fact that the grandparents h volve upon the child. The learn hat since the compromise is be pondent No.1 even asking for ult can be found with the impugn e Family Court. Meanwhile, ly Court, shall bring the minor ch hearing so that the minor child ioner herein). The meeting shall iliation Centre at District Cou ting dea her, s of er is or el if has n to o.1-had ned eing ned can l be urts,

¶8stand disp be treated

22.05.202 Yogesh Sharm

Disposed off accordingly. P posed off. It is made clear any o d as an expression of opinion on t ma NOTE: Whether speaking/no

Pending applications, if any, a observations made herein shall the merits of the case.

( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE on-speaking: Speaking

also