MANJEET KUMAR Vs. SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenged in this appeal is made by appellant-Manjit Kumar, father of minor child Mayank, to the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, exercising the powers of the District Judge, in a petition preferred by respondent-mother Suman under section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act read with Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, holding her to be entitled for the custody of minor child and granting visitation rights to the appellant-father to meet the minor child every week ordinarily at a religious place or other agreed place.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the marriage between appellant-Manjit Kumar and respondent-Suman was solemnized on 22.06.1998 at Sirsa according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two male children, namely, Akash and Mayank were born. Akash, the elder son, had been residing with his grand-parents at Rohtak after the birth of younger son Mayank. Since there was not much understanding between the respondent and her in-laws, the appellant along with respondent and minor son Mayank shifted to a rented accommodation. As per the allegations of the appellant, because of the quarrelsome attitude of the respondent, she had been, on and off, going to paternal house. On 07.05.2011, respondent hurled filthy abuses and also taunted him that he is less educated and that he would be involved in a false case. It is asserted that on 10.07.2011, with an intention to kill the appellant, the respondent mixed poison in the milk of the appellant, which was seen by their minor son Mayank, who informed the appellant, thus, saved his life. Allegations have also been made that the respondent had illicit relations with different persons other than her wedlock, to which, he raised objections but to no effect. Because of unethical and immoral act of the respondent, which became unbearable, the appellant called her parents on 06.06.2012 to sort out the matter but they threatened the appellant with dire consequences and advised him to tolerate and accept their daughter. They had come there with an intention to kill him along with pistols and robbed him of his documents and Rs. 2,00,000/-, for which, a complaint was submitted to the police but no FIR was registered.

(3.) In the petition, which had been filed by the respondent, who is mother of minor Mayank, it has been asserted that the appellant-father had expelled her from the house. She along with minor son Mayank moved to her matrimonial home at Sirsa. On 12.06.2012, minor Mayank was snatched from the respondent near Delhi Bridge at Sirsa and thereafter, the minor son was not allowed to meet the respondent. The appellant is a drunkard and addicted to alcohol apart from indulging in bad habits like bringing young girls in the house along with his friends and that too in the presence of the minor. Since the younger son Mayank, who is minor, lives in the company of the appellant, he would gradually adopt all theses habits and his career would be spoiled. Respondent is an educated lady and can provide better environment and exposure to minor son and his future would be safe in her hands.