COLONEL RAMESH PAL SINGH Vs. SUGHANDHI AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/husband is aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Family Courts on an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as G and W Act). By way of the impugned order the Family Courts granted the custody of both the children to the Respondent after the completion of current session i.e. 2017-2018 and also drew out a vacation arrangement of summer, winter and other holidays being Deepawali and Holi. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.10.2017 reads as under:-

(2.) The necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.12.2002 at New Delhi in accordance with Sikh rites and rituals. Two children namely Suhani aged 10 years and Shabad aged 7 years were born out of the wedlock. The parties separated in the year 2015. That on 11.08.2015, the appellant took the children with him to Kashmir and thereafter shifted to Bikaner alongwith his children and his mother. The Respondent preferred a petition under section 7, 9 and 25 of the G and W Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor children. Along with the main petition filed under the aforesaid petition, the respondent also preferred an application under Section 12 of the G and W Act in Delhi for the interim custody of her children. The Appellant also filed a case under G and W Act at Bikaner Rajasthan seeking custody of the children. The respondent in the meanwhile moved a transfer petition before the Supreme Court and the case at Bikaner was transferred to Delhi. The Family Court vide order dated 16.10.2017 allowed the application for the interim custody in Guardianship Petition No. 75/2015 and granted the interim custody of the children to the respondent. Being aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Family Courts.

(3.) At the outset, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is not maintainable as the order under challenge is an interlocutory order and the G and W Act as well as the Family Courts Act bars an appeal against interlocutory orders.