MADHURI MURTHY Vs. SIVAKUMAR CHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-mother is assailing the order passed by the Family Court, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-M. The respondent-father made an application under Section 26 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the minor child Rahul during the winter vacation, which commences from 20-12-2009 to 3-1-2010. The learned Family Judge has granted the said application.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are several factual errors and mistakes of facts committed by the learned Family Judge. He further submits that the petitioner-mother and the Counsel were made to believe that the matter is likely to be settled. But however, an application is moved. Nevertheless, he submits that the minor child Rahul can stay with the respondent-father on 29th and 30th of this month.

(3.) Mr. Kesthur N. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-father submits that there should not be any impediment for the child to stay with the father during the winter vacation inasmuch as the child would be with the mother all throughout. He further submits that in the alternate, the child can stay with the father, at least for the first half of the vacation.