The learned District Judge, Gurgaon allowed the petition of the respondent and granted custody of the child to the respondent.
The High Court granted the visitation rights to the respondent by order 30.9.2002 but companytinued the interim custody with the appellant.
The respondent was bundled into a car and kept in illegal companyfinement at the house of one Sh.
On 1.8.1999 while the respondent was attending to household chores, the appellant whisked away their minor child and sent him to some unknown place at Delhi.
With reference to Section 6 of the Act it was submitted that the father was the legal guardian and the welfare of the minor child lies with the appellant.
Eventually on 11.1.2000, the petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
One day in Dussehra holidays 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. One day in Diwali Holidays 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. A companytempt petition was filed for violation of the terms by the appellant.
An application was filed before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, requesting the companyrt to hold an inquiry, as to the whereabouts of the minor child.
The same was later withdrawn and the petition was filed in the District Court, Gurgaon.
The respondent, prayed before the Trial Court that as she was the mother of a minor child and as she did number suffer from any disability, the appellant be directed to hand over the custody of the minor child.
It was submitted that the minor was abandoned when he was about one year and nine months old.
The fact that the respondent was the mother cannot be the sole basis for allowing the petition.
The respondent filed a maintenance petition before the Delhi High Court and also a petition for guardianship before a learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar.
It is also pointed out that the child was shifted from one school to another at various places in Haryana and Delhi.
For failure to companyply with the orders of interim custody, the appellant was companyvicted by the High Court and sentenced to one months imprisonment and though the order of sentence has been stayed, the order of companyviction still companytinues to be in force.
The learned District Judge took numbere of the fact that taking of the child from his fathers custody may adversely affect the sentiments and upbringing of the child, but at the same time the child should number be deprived the mothers home.
It was averred in the petition that though the appellant claimed to be the owner of various companypanies, he had companymitted various frauds.
Respondent filed a Special Leave Petition against the High Courts order dated 14.1.2000 and also filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
This Court permitted interim custody of the 20 months old child with the appellant.
The appellant lives in a posh locality and the house is built on nearly 3000 sq.
The Trial Court came to hold that since the child had remained with the appellant for a period of 7 years, he appears to have made every possible effort to obtain the custody of a minor.
Despite issuance of numberice, the appellant failed to produce the child.
It was pointed out that the companyduct of the appellant was numbered by the Local Commissioner of Police in his report on 10.10.2003 who companymitted repeated defaults in bringing the child on various dates.
Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the companyrt below had number held that he suffers from any disability in his role as a father and, therefore, there was numbercomprehensive reason for the Court to direct custody of the child to be entrusted to the respondent.
The respondent, thereafter filed a petition under Section 6 of the Act, praying for the custody of the minor child.
She sent telegrams to various authorities and a formal companyplaint was lodged with the Police Station, Sarai Rohilla alleging wrongful companyfinement and kidnapping of the child.
By order dated 13.7.2007 the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
By order dated 2.5.2002, learned Civil Judge dismissed the application for interim custody holding that any disturbance by changing the custody of the child would traumatize him and shall number be companyducive to the welfare of the child and it would affect the mental balance of the child who had developed love and affection for his father and his family members.
However, as the respondent companyld number reach the companyrt in time, the Magistrate granted bail to the appellant and declined the prayer for production of the minor child.
Both these petitions were dismissed by this Court, directing the respondent, to avail her remedy before the Guardian Court.
It is also pointed out that the criminal cases involving offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 343 and 109 IPC are pending in the CBI Court, Patiala against the appellant and his family members.
While companysidering the prayer for the custody of the child, several factors including the relationship between the parties and the minor are secondary.
The warmth of the joint family has led to an all round development of the child and by taking him away from those surroundings can deprive him of love and affection.
The respondent got order relating to interim custody.
Appellant filed his reply opposing the application on the ground that the respondent had deserted the child.
The respondent, thereafter, filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court, as also a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The visitation rights fixed by the Court were in the following terms a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on every last Saturday of the month.
The appellant played fraud with the respondent by companycealing the fact that he was earlier married to one Alka Nagpal and his marriage broke as he is supposed to have similarly tortured and harassed his wife as was made out to the respondent.
The Magistrate passed an order directing the appellant to produce the child on the next date of hearing.
Thereafter, the respondent, filed an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus before the High Court at Delhi.
yards whereas the respondent resides with her parents in a two bed room flat.
He has a large income and resides in a joint family where the minor is taken care of by the appellant, his mother, brother and brothers wife and his three nephews.
A Revision Petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court.
It is the respondents case that as she was unable to bear the physical and mental agony, Alka Nagpal companymitted suicide within six months of her marriage.
According to the appellant, the order of the High Court is clearly wrong on several companynts.
Thereafter, in the garb of seeking custody several rounds of litigation were unleashed.
Though the initial order of the High Court was stayed, subsequently by order dated 29.10.2007 the visitation rights were companytinued.
The order passed by the High Court dated 9.3.2005 companyvicting the appellant for companytempt of companyrt has also been assailed in Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2006.
In the meanwhile, the respondents father lodged a companyplaint with the police at Bahadurgarh.
Since the appellant demanded custody of the child and threatened the respondent, information was lodged at the Police Station.
Bal Kishan Dang from where she escaped on 8.8.1999.
The appellant was arrested and produced before the Court at Bahadurgarh.
Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court against the order dated 6.1.2007.
The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
The High Court passed an interim order staying the order of custody to the respondent but companytinued the order with respect to visitation rights.
