Rajiv Kumar vs Preeti Rani
2022 Latest Caselaw 2287 P&H

                                                                          -1-
FAO-999 of 2019


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                           FAO-999 of 2019
                                           Date of Decision: 30.03.2022

Rajiv Kumar
                                                                ...Appellant


                                Versus


Preeti Rani
                                                              ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present:- Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate,
          for the appellant.

RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL)

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated

12.10.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bathinda,

whereby petition filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the

Guardians and Wards Act for custody of minor sons, namely, Sherry

Bansal and Anmol Bansal, has been allowed.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length, we do

not find any merit in this appeal.

In para 7 of the impugned judgment it has been observed that

earlier marriage of the respondent-wife was dissolved vide judgment

dated 27.07.2011 (Ex.PX) and the custody of the child, namely, Sherry

Bansal, was given to the respondent. In the present case also the custody

of the child, namely, Anmol Bansal is with the respondent as it was stated

1 of 2

FAO-999 of 2019

by the respondent that appellant is a drug-addict; he is facing trial in six

cases under the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act and

remained behind bars in those cases from time to time. Further, the age of

the child was below five years, therefore, as per Section 6 of the Hindu

Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, 2015 AIR (SCW)

2925 custody of the minor child has rightly been given to the respondent.

Moreover, no offer has been made by the appellant to secure the future of

the minor child.

Dismissed.

                                                      (Ritu Bahri)
                                                         Judge



                                                 (Ashok Kumar Verma)
March 30, 2022                                         Judge
R.S.


          Whether speaking/reasoned                  Yes/No

          Whether Reportable                         Yes/No




                                2 of 2