MANOJ Vs. VIRENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 13.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby the petition filed by respondent No.1 for custody of the minor girl child, namely, Reena, was allowed.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with Sonu and out of their wedlock, a female child, namely, Reena was born. Said Sonu died in the year 2001. At the time of filing of the petition on 21.01.2005, Reena was of about six years and was living with the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 who are maternal uncle, grandmother and aunt. According to respondent No.1, the custody of the minor with them was not safe as they had no love and affection and they were not giving proper education and other facilities to the child. Respondent No.1 being father had much love and affection towards his own daughter and he was interested to give her better education and other modern facilities. Accordingly, he filed a petition under Section 25 of the Act for custody of minor Reena. The said petition was contested by the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections including that the court at Sonepat had no jurisdiction to try the petition as the child was residing at Rohtak, it was pleaded that the child was residing with her maternal uncle and aunt and they were giving proper education to her. They also got admitted her in an English medium school and were keeping the child properly by giving all modern facilities of living. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 had no source of income and was also having no love and affection for the child. Her custody with them was safe and it was not possible for a female child to remain with respondent No.1. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: -

(3.) IN support of his case, respondent No.1 appeared as PW1 and examined Jagdish as PW2 and Murti Devi as PW3. On the other hand, the appellant had examined himself as RW1 and Sanjana as RW2.