FAO-4655-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Narinder Kumar & others Vandana Rani & another CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. The appellant children namely Manveer Singh and Yuvraj Singh 23.05.2025 vide which Balachaur, has granted visitation rights to respondent No.1 (wife of appellant No.1 “…… her 5.00 PM on every last Friday of the month.” 2. The matter arises out of a petition filed by Vandana Rani herein) under Sections 7, 8 & 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking custody of wherein she Narinder Kumar (appellant No.1 herein) of the wedlock. It is averred that she was, however, turned out from he 2025 (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4655- Date of Decision: Narinder Kumar & others Versus Vandana Rani & another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Mr. Vipan Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. The appellants, who are the father and paternal grand namely Manveer Singh and Yuvraj Singh 23.05.2025 vide which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court at , has granted visitation rights to respondent No.1 f appellant No.1 – Narinder Kumar) in the following terms: ………………the petitioner is granted visitation rights to meet her minor children once in a month in the Court from 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM on every last Friday of the month.” The matter arises out of a petition filed by Vandana Rani under Sections 7, 8 & 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking custody of her minor children namely Manveer Singh and Yuvraj Singh, she averred that her marriage was solemnized in January, 2013 with Narinder Kumar (appellant No.1 herein) and that of the wedlock. It is averred that she was, however, turned out from he IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.07.2025 …Appellants ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Advocate, paternal grand-parents of the minor namely Manveer Singh and Yuvraj Singh, assail order dated the Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court at , has granted visitation rights to respondent No.1 – Vandana Rani Narinder Kumar) in the following terms: …………the petitioner is granted visitation rights to meet minor children once in a month in the Court from 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM on every last Friday of the month.” The matter arises out of a petition filed by Vandana Rani (respondent No.1 under Sections 7, 8 & 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking y Manveer Singh and Yuvraj Singh, marriage was solemnized in January, 2013 with and that two children were born out of the wedlock. It is averred that she was, however, turned out from he parents of the minor order dated the Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court at Vandana Rani respondent No.1 under Sections 7, 8 & 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking y Manveer Singh and Yuvraj Singh, marriage was solemnized in January, 2013 with two children were born out of the wedlock. It is averred that she was, however, turned out from her VIMAL KUMAR 2025.08.01 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4655-2025 (O&M) matrimonial home in August, 2022 and ever since her parents. It is further the case of respondent No.1 that while her husband i.e. appellant No.1 children were residing with their grand that because of their old age, they were not able to look after the minor children effectively. 3. The said petition was, however, oppose herein had been giving beatings to the minor children and that the minor children also did not wish to reside with her and that on an earlier occasion, respondent No.1 leading to lodging of an FIR filing their reply further took up a stand that respondent No.1 have sufficient 4. A separate application was filed by respondent No.1 before the Family Court seeking issuance of directions to produce the minor children and to allow her to meet them. 5. The Family Court upon considering the facts on record allowed the said application Rani to meet her minor children once in a month for two hours i.e. from 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM on last Friday of 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned o submitted that it is the appellants, who have minor children, whereas respondent No.1 is not even possessed of sufficient means to ensure proper been submitted that respondent No.1 2025 (O&M) ( 2 ) matrimonial home in August, 2022 and ever since her parents. It is further the case of respondent No.1 that while her husband i.e. appellant No.1 – Narinder Kumar had gone abroad, her two minor children were residing with their grand-parents i.e. appellants No.2 & 3 and because of their old age, they were not able to look after the minor effectively. The said petition was, however, opposed on the ground that respondent No.1 herein had been giving beatings to the minor children and that the minor children also did not wish to reside with her and that on an earlier occasion, respondent No.1 alongwith her brothers had kidnapped the minor chil leading to lodging of an FIR against respondent No.1 filing their reply further took up a stand that respondent No.1 sufficient sources of income to maintain the children. A separate application was filed by respondent No.1 before the Family Court seeking issuance of directions to produce the minor children and to allow her to meet them. The Family Court upon considering the facts on record allowed the said vide impugned order while permitting respondent No.1 Rani to meet her minor children once in a month for two hours i.e. from 3.00 PM to 5.00 PM on last Friday of every month. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned o submitted that it is the appellants, who have minor children, whereas respondent No.1 is not even possessed of sufficient means to ensure proper upkeep and education of minor children been submitted that respondent No.1 in fact has a criminal bent of mind as she matrimonial home in August, 2022 and ever since she has been residing with her parents. It is further the case of respondent No.1 that while her husband Kumar had gone abroad, her two minor parents i.e. appellants No.2 & 3 and because of their old age, they were not able to look after the minor d on the ground that respondent No.1 herein had been giving beatings to the minor children and that the minor children also did not wish to reside with her and that on an earlier occasion, had kidnapped the minor children against respondent No.1. The appellants, while filing their reply further took up a stand that respondent No.1 does not even of income to maintain the children. A separate application was filed by respondent No.1 before the Family Court seeking issuance of directions to produce the minor children and to allow her The Family Court upon considering the facts on record allowed the said while permitting respondent No.1 – Vandana Rani to meet her minor children once in a month for two hours i.e. from 3.00 month. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that it is the appellants, who have always been taking care of the minor children, whereas respondent No.1 is not even possessed of sufficient upkeep and education of minor children. It has further fact has a criminal bent of mind as she residing with her parents. It is further the case of respondent No.1 that while her husband Kumar had gone abroad, her two minor parents i.e. appellants No.2 & 3 and because of their old age, they were not able to look after the minor d on the ground that respondent No.1 herein had been giving beatings to the minor children and that the minor children also did not wish to reside with her and that on an earlier occasion, dren while does not even A separate application was filed by respondent No.1 before the Family Court seeking issuance of directions to produce the minor children and to allow her The Family Court upon considering the facts on record allowed the said Vandana Rani to meet her minor children once in a month for two hours i.e. from 3.00 rder, been taking care of the minor children, whereas respondent No.1 is not even possessed of sufficient . It has further fact has a criminal bent of mind as she VIMAL KUMAR 2025.08.01 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4655-2025 (O&M) alongwith her brothers had kidnapped FIR and as such, and consequently, 7. We have considered the submissions addressed on behalf of the appellants. 8. While it may be respondent No.1 (wife), but lodging of an FIR when some matrimonial litigation is pending between the parties at the instance of one of the party is normally an outcome of FIR cannot fit enough to look after the rights. The Family Court has rather been visitation rights, which No.1 being the biological mother of the minor children cannot be deprived of such visitation rights particularly when there is nothing on record to disentitle her for the same. 9. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the 23.05.2025. Finding no merit in the 31.07.2025 Vimal 2025 (O&M) ( 3 ) alongwith her brothers had kidnapped the minor children leading to lodging of and as such, her influence on the minor children will have a consequently, she does not deserve to be granted visitation rights. considered the submissions addressed on behalf of the appellants. While it may be correct that some FIR may have been lodged against respondent No.1 (wife), but lodging of an FIR when some matrimonial litigation is pending between the parties at the instance of one of the party is an outcome of matrimonial discord and the mere of FIR cannot ipso facto be lead to an inference that such of the fit enough to look after the minor children or even to be granted visitation The Family Court has rather been on rights, which is barely for two hours once No.1 being the biological mother of the minor children cannot be deprived of such visitation rights particularly when there is nothing on record to disentitle her for the same. sequently, we do not find any infirmity in the 23.05.2025. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: the minor children leading to lodging of her influence on the minor children will have adverse effect she does not deserve to be granted visitation rights. considered the submissions addressed on behalf of the appellants. correct that some FIR may have been lodged against respondent No.1 (wife), but lodging of an FIR when some matrimonial litigation is pending between the parties at the instance of one of the party is of matrimonial discord and the mere factum of lodging d to an inference that such of the parent is not children or even to be granted visitation The Family Court has rather been very conservative in granting two hours once in a month. Respondent No.1 being the biological mother of the minor children cannot be deprived of such visitation rights particularly when there is nothing on record to disentitle sequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No the minor children leading to lodging of dverse effect correct that some FIR may have been lodged against respondent No.1 (wife), but lodging of an FIR when some matrimonial litigation is pending between the parties at the instance of one of the party is factum of lodging parent is not children or even to be granted visitation conservative in granting . Respondent No.1 being the biological mother of the minor children cannot be deprived of such visitation rights particularly when there is nothing on record to disentitle impugned order dated VIMAL KUMAR 2025.08.01 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document