The Learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 19.07.2010 was pleased to allow the applications moved by the appellant father.
The appellant, who is an IAS officer, stationed at Jammu at present, had sought certain modifications in the arrangement of custody of the children, and also permission to take transfer certificates of the children from Delhi and companyplete their admission in a school in Jammu, and in this respect, moved applications dated 25.05.2010 and 22.06.2010 before the Additional District Judge.
This fact was also numbered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment, and is also admitted by both the parties in their respective written submissions.
Being aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment delivered by the Trial Court, the respondent preferred CM M No.
He also found that there was also an admission by the respondent mother that she would number be able to adequately handle the educational needs of the elder son without tutors.
For the aforestated reasons, the learned Single Judge ordered that custody of the elder son should remain with the appellant father.
In the case of the younger son, the learned Single Judge observed that he, being of a very tender age, was incapable of forming a definite preference as to with whom he wanted to stay.
The appellant and the respondent have been living separately since 10.04.2007, and have been involved in various litigations since then, including a petition for divorce under Section 13 1 i 1A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellant father and also proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated by the respondent mother.
As the impugned order is challenged in both these appeals, both the appeals were heard together and they are being decided by this companymon order.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, both the parties have companye before this Court vide the present appeals.
On this basis, the custody of the younger son was directed to remain with the respondent.
1018 of 2010 before the High Court.
For the sake of companyvenience, parties to the litigation have been referred to hereinbelow as arrayed in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave petition No.
We heard the learned companynsel for the parties, and also spoke to the children at length.
The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding to the effect that both the children appeared to be very happy in the companypany of each other as there was a strong bonding between them.
13254 of 2011.
Thereafter, the learned companynsel made further submissions about the poor academic performance of the younger son while in the custody of the respondent mother, and also regarding the alleged adulterous companyduct of the respondent mother, which was said to have a severe adverse effect on the children.
By virtue of the impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent whereby the respondent was permitted to have custody of the younger son, whereas the appellant was to have custody of the elder son.
From the wedlock, two sons were born, who are approximately 15 and 9 years old.
The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 14.02.1994.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated the 21st of February, 2011 in CM M 1018 of 2010, these appeals have been filed by the parties before the High Court, who are parents of two children, whose custody is the subject matter of these appeals.
ANIL R. DAVE, J Leave granted.
