VIJAY SHARMA Vs. SHEETAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 30/11/2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla District Shimla (learned Trial Court) vide which the petition seeking the custody of the minor filed by the appellant (petitioner before learned Trial Court) was ordered to be dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner filed a petition, as amended, before the learned Trial Court seeking the custody of minor Lavish Sharma. It was asserted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Sisra on 14/9/2015. Lavish Sharma was born to the parties on 2/3/2017. The differences arose between the parties and respondent No.1 left her matrimonial home in August 2021 with the minor. The petitioner disclosed this incident to the parents of respondent No.1. He also called respondent No.1, who disclosed that she was at Ambala. Petitioner brought her and the minor to his home at Sirsa. Respondent No.2 sent a message to the petitioner on the next day threatening him with dire consequences. The petitioner made inquiries from respondent No.1. He subsequently found that respondents No.1 and 2 were in a relationship before the marriage. Respondent No.2 instigated respondent No.1 to leave her matrimonial home. Respondent No.1 left her matrimonial home with the child. Respondent No.1 is dependent upon respondent No.2 and she is unable to take care of the minor. The petitioner would provide the best education to the minor by enrolling him in a reputed school; hence, the petition.

(3.) The petition was opposed by filing a reply by respondents Nos.1 and 2 admitting the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It was asserted that the petitioner and his parents started torturing respondent No.1 for dowry even though sufficient dowry was provided to them. The petitioner and his parents never gave anything to respondent No.1 and her child. They abused respondent No.1 and compelled her to do household chores. They even doubted the paternity of the minor and asked for his DNA test to determine his paternity. Respondent No.1 herself disclosed the relationship between her and respondent No.2 to the petitioner. She also stated that she was not in contact with respondent No.2 after her marriage. The petitioner did not permit the minor to attend his essential class test. The welfare of the minor lies with his mother. Respondent No.1 is a postgraduate in computer sciences and is not dependent upon any person. She has worked as a teacher in several schools and she can provide a comfortable life to the minor. Respondent No.2 has his boutique at Mumbai. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.