Mrs. Devender Pal Kaur vs Mr. Manjit Singh
2008 Latest Caselaw 878 Del

              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   FAO NO. 192 OF 2008

                                        Reserved on : 6th June, 2008

                                   Date of Decision: June 11th, 2008

# Mrs. Devender Pal Kaur                        ..... Appellant
!                            Through    Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Advocate
                                        with Mr. Rajiv Sharma,
                                        Advocate
                   Versus

$ Mr. Manjit Singh                             ..... Respondent
                             Through    None


CORAM:

* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

                   JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J :

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 2nd

June, 2008 passed by the Guardianship Court, whereby it has

directed that the custody of two minor children will be handed over to

the Respondent/father on all Sundays during the month of June, 2008

from 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/wife contends that the

Respondent is in breach of the order dated 9th October, 2007 as he

has not paid the expenses and, consequently, he was not entitled for

any discretionary relief of the Guardianship Court. In this connection,

the learned Counsel for Appellant has relied upon a judgment of this

Court in case of "Smt. Raj Roshini Vs. Shri Surinder Kumar"

reported in MANU/DE/0436/2008. He further submits that if the

impugned order is not set aside, then impressionable minor children

would have to repeatedly visit the police station Hari Nagar as the

Petitioner would have to hand over and take over custody of the

children at the police station. The learned Counsel for Appellant

further states that the Appellant had planned to take the children to a

hill station for a fortnight so as to give them a change and outing but

owing to the impugned order, her schedule has been upset.

3. In my view, the Appellant's arguments are misconceived on

facts and untenable in law. I find that in the present case the

Respondent has been contributing a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as

maintenance charges and the only dispute is with regard to certain

expenses which the Respondent is alleged not to have reimbursed.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that most of the bills for

expenses were supplied by the Appellant only on the date when

impugned order was passed. Moreover as in the present case the

Respondent has been making regular payment of maintenance

charges, it cannot be held as was done in Smt. Raj Roshini's case

that the Respondent is not willing to pay any money to his wife for

bringing up his minor children.

4. On a perusal of the impugned order, I find that it is a well

reasoned one and has been passed not only after holding a brief

session with both the minor children in chamber of the Judge, but the

said order also considers the matter from different prospectives. A

reading of the impugned order also shows that handing over and

taking over of custody of the children has been made in presence of

duty officer at police station to ensure its timely and smooth

implementation. Moreover, I find that the Guardianship Court has

stipulated a few guidelines to ensure that the handing over and taking

over of custody of children is done in a peaceful and cordial manner.

The other argument that the impugned order has upset the

Appellant's schedule to take the children for a vacation does not

impress this Court as for normal upbringing of children, contact and

affection of both the parents is paramount.

5. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merits is

dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

Manmohan (Vacation Judge)

June 11th, 2008 rn