DIDAR SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana, whereby the petition filed by appellant Didar Singh under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short - Rs. the Act') for custody of the minor children Osheen Deol and Manavdeep Singh, who were born on 8.8.2000 and 7.9.2002 respectively out of the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, was dismissed.

(2.) THE marriage between the appellant and the respondent had taken place on 14.11.1999. After the marriage a daughter, namely, Osheen Deol was born on 8.8.2000 and a son namely, Manavdeep Singh was born on 7.9.2002. It is the case of the appellant that as the relations between the parties were not cordial and due to differences between them, the respondent left her matrimonial home along with the minor children in the month of April 2004 and did not return back despite several efforts made by him. Ultimately, the respondent filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a decree of divorce was granted in her favour vide judgment dated 28.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad. The respondent did not even allow the appellant to meet the minor children.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued before me that the appellant has sufficient source of income as he is having agriculture land measuring 19 Kanals 17 Marlas and is earning in between Rs. 1,80,000/ - to Rs. 3,00,000/ - from the source of agriculture produce. It is also contended that the appellant is also running the business and is earning Rs. 1,00,000/ - approximately whereas the respondent has no source of income and she is fully dependent on her father and brother and is not in a position to maintain the children and provide them better education. It is also submitted that the appellant be allowed visiting rights to meet his children in the school. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is sufficient evidence on the file that the respondent is providing good education and other facilities to the minor children and she is also providing her love and affection to them.