Ravi Kumar vs Manju

S.S. Saron, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Guardian Judge, Chandigarh, whereby interim custody of the minor son of the parties, namely, Shourya is to be given to Manju - respondent, who is his mother, from 5.6.2014 at 2.00 p.m. till 20.06.2014 at 2.00 p.m. On the latter date and time, the respondent is to produce the minor before the learned Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh for handing over custody of the minor child back to the petitioner.

The parties on their own solemnized their marriage on 26.03.2006, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was an inter caste marriage. The parents of the respondent, it is alleged were not happy with the marriage and they always threatened the petitioner that they would not allow them to live together. From their marriage, the parties have a son namely Shourya, who was born on 01.01.2007. He is 7 1/2 years old and presently, he is in custody of the petitioner. There are various litigations going on and pending between the parties including a petition u/s 7, 9, 17 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. During the pendency of the petition, under the Guardian Wards Act, the interim custody of the minor has been given to the respondent for 15 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the minor is absolutely unhappy with the respondent and he does not want to go with her. He has strenuously urged that this Court may interact with the minor and ascertain that the minor does not want to go with the respondent. It is further submitted that the minor has a dislike for his mother (respondent). Besides, the respondent is a working lady and would not be able to look after and take care of him.

Learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the minor in fact has great love and affection for his mother (respondent). In fact, the petitioner had stealthily taken the minor from the house of the respondent while she was at work.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has objected to the same and submitted that this is factually incorrect. However, learned counsel for the respondent reiterates the same.

Be that as it may, the only dispute is that the custody of the minor is to be given to the mother for a period of 15 days and mother would be liable to produce the child before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 20.06.2014 at 2.00 p.m. sharp.

After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.5.2014 passed by the learned Guardian Judge. The learned Guardian Judge, had interacted with the child in his chambers and the child had stated that he was not willing to go with his mother. The learned Guardian Judge opined that the possibility of the child being tutored could not be ruled out and a 7 1/2 years old child was not in a position to fully understand the nature of the dispute.

It would, therefore, be injudicious at this stage again to question the minor as to whether he is willing to go with his mother or not. The learned Guardian Judge has already carried out the exercise only on 27.05.2014. It would, therefore, be improper again to subject the minor to questioning. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the respondent has taken 15 days leave from her work to be with her minor child. Therefore, it would be in the interest of the minor that he meets his mother for a period of 15 days so as to have her love and affection as well. The parties themselves are in various litigations but for that they do have a common ground of the minor and at some stage the possibility of amicably settling the matter for the sake of the minor cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient to hand over the custody of the minor to his mother for a period of 15 days for which no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. However, any observations made herein shall not be construed an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending between the parties.

The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.