MALKIAT KAUR Vs. RAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.10147 CII of 2014

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant -wife against the order dated 19.7.2013 passed by the Guardian Judge, Karnal whereby the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (in short, "the Act") filed by the respondent -husband for custody of minor Child Mandeep alias Harkirat has been allowed.

(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as available on the record may be noticed. Appellant No.1 was married to the respondent on 5.12.2004 at Village Nadana Dera Gobindgarh Gamri, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal as per Hindu rites and customs ceremonies (Anand Karaj). After the marriage, a male child namely Mandeep @ Harkirat was born on 20.9.2006. Due to temperamental differences between the parties, they filed a divorce petition under Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, "the HMA Act") by mutual consent. Vide judgment dated 20.3.2010, their marriage was dissolved. They were bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise on the basis of which decree of divorce was passed. According to the respondent, appellant No.1 solemnized second marriage on 21.5.2010 with Jasbir Singh son of Rajinder Singh, resident of Village Dharam Kot, District Yamuanagar and minor son of the appellant No.1 is living with appellant No.2. The respondent claimed that in accordance with the terms and conditions settled in divorce proceedings and judgment dated 20.3.2010, he was entitled to take the custody of the minor child. He filed petition under Section 25 of the Act. Upon notice, the appellants appeared and filed their joint written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. It was inter alia pleaded that the minor child is in custody of appellant No.2 who is mother of appellant No.1 being natural guardian and as per the agreement between the parties,the minor child will remain in the custody of the appellant No.1 till the age of nine years or till she remarries whichever is earlier. The fact regarding second marriage by appellant No.1 was denied. The trial court after considering the evidence on record allowed the petition vide order dated 19.7.2013 and directed appellant No.1 to hand over the custody of the minor child to the respondent within one month from the date of the judgment. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant -wife.