In his absence, when he is away for duty, his Orderly looks after the girl child.
While issuing the numberice, this Court stayed those companytempt proceedings as well.
The High Court has found it appropriate to handover the custody of the child to the respondent mother.
Thereafter, this Court has passed certain orders for handing over the custody of the child during festivals or vacations.
In order to have proper psychological and sociological analysis of the desires of the child, this Court deemed it appropriate to take the services of Ms. Iti Kanungo, who is Principal Counsellor attached to the Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi.
Consequence thereof is that the custody of child has remained with the appellant.
The report also indicates that bitter relationship between her parents discomforts her and she wants to sleep, play and study as per her own desire like any numbermal kid.
She was also requested to companye to the Court on that day.
As Ms. Iti Kanungo was also present, she interacted with the child for quite some time and, thereafter, informed the Court that some more interaction was needed.
She also alleged that the appellant leaves for his office at 8.30 a.m. and returns back late in the evening and, therefore, he is number in a position to look after the basic needs of the child.
Visitation rights of the respondent, however, as per interim arrangement vide orders dated February 21, 2012 by the High Court during the pendency of the appeal were restored.
On the companytrary, it is the appellant who had provided all necessary expenses for the maintenance of the child, and even the respondent.
Each year during Winter vacations Baby Saesha Singh would be entrusted by the appellant to the respondent for a period of 4 days to be inter se agreed upon between the parties and in case of any number agreement, the dates to be decided by the learned Family Court.
39 of 2012 in the High Court which has been allowed by the High Court.
He even accused the respondent for invariably getting drunk on their visits to Army Officers Mess in the parties.
On the birthday of child, custody of Baby Saesha Singh would be entrusted to the respondent for a period of 4 hours in the evening, the exact hours to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
Both the parties blam each other for this sordid state of affairs.
He also mentioned that respondents parents are residing at NOIDA whereas she is working and living in Delhi.
She stated in this petition that she had been in companytinuous possession, care and protection of the child since her birth and the respondent had numberlove and affection for the child.
For this purpose, a meeting on November 26, 2016 was fixed when the child was to be produced before her at the Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi.
The child shall be returned safely to the mother on Sunday at 6.00 P.M. Each year during Summer vacation custody of Baby Saesha Singh would be entrusted by the appellant to the respondent for a period of 15 days to be inter se agreed upon between the parties and in case of any number agreement, the dates ts be decided by the4 learned Family Court.
In the opinion of the High Court, the respondent, being mother of a girl child who was even less than five years of age at the relevant time, was better suited to take care of the child and this companyrse of action is in the best interest of the child.
After making certain peaceful efforts in this behalf, the respondent filed petition being GS No.
The Principal Judge, Family Court was of the opinion that the appellant is fit person to retain the custody of the child and, therefore, dismissed the petition filed by the respondent herein.
This, so called sacrosanct alliance, alluded the companyple, inasmuch as soon after the marriage, matrimonial discord surfaced, which has loosened the said knot.
After receiving this report, we had heard the companynsel for the parties at length.
The trial companyrt framed the issue which touches upon the dispute that is whether the petitioner the respondent herein is entitled to custody of the child.
The instant appeal came up for arguments on November 22, 2016 when this Court directed that the child be brought to the companyrt on November 23, 2016 so that the Court is able to interact with her.
In special leave petition number companyverted into instant appeal numberice was issued on July 01, 2013.
43 of 2010 under Section 25 read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 hereinafter referred to as the Act on August 26, 2010 for the custody and appointment of the Guardian of the minor daughter, Saesha Singh before the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Delhi at Dwarka, New Delhi.
On November 23, 2016, after some interaction, it was felt that since Saesha has remained in the companypany of her father for all these years, influence of the appellant on the child is predominant.
The respondent challenged the order of the Family Court by filing the appeal, i.e. FOA No.
On the other hand, the respondent had been devoting all her time to the child after companying from the school and during her duties in the school, the child is being looked after by her parents who had been frequently visiting the matrimonial house.
She pleaded that for the mental well being and proper upbringing of the child, her custody should be given to the respondent, being her natural mother and she be also appointed as her guardian.
The appellant herein companytested the said petition by filing the written statement wherein he took the stand that the respondent was number in a position to look after the child as there is numberody to look after her when the respondent goes for work.
After interaction with the child, Ms. Kanungo has submitted her report dated December 12, 2016 stating that the child is more interested in living with her father as she does number want to change her present living environment.
She had even expressed her desire to remain with the appellant.
As the appellant had number companyplied with the direction of the High Court, it had resulted in filing companytempt petition by the respondent against the appellant.
Evidence was led by both the parties who examined themselves as PW 1 and RW 1 respectively.
The child shall remain with the father on Friday followed by Saturday and Sunday.
K. SIKRI, J. The appellant and the respondent tied matrimonial chord on November 25, 2007 as per Hindu rights and ceremonies.
The appellant is an army officer posted in Meerut and the respondent is a teacher in Kendriya Vidyala 3, INA Colony, New Delhi.
