Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal under Sec. 47 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter '1956 Act') has been filed against the order dt. 10.10.2013 passed by Additional District Judge Dholpur dismissing appellant -applicant's (hereinafter 'the applicant') application under Sec. 6 of the 1956 Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his arguments to the claiming visitation rights for the applicant to visit his minor son Mayank, now 12 years of age.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order dt. 10.10.2013 passed by the trial Court. The facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent non applicant were married on 2 -12 -2001. From the marriage a son, Mayank was born on 13 -10 -2002. It appears that soon thereafter discord set in between the couple, consequent to which the respondent - non applicant wife Latasha (hereinafter 'the non applicant') moved an application for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and also initiated proceedings inter alia for unlawful demand for property against the applicant husband alleging offences under Sections 498 -A, 452 and 323 IPC at Ferozabad (U.P.), where she continued to reside with her parents after the breakdown of her marriage to the applicant. Subsequent to the application for maintenance and criminal case detailed above, the applicant husband moved an application for divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking dissolution of marriage with the non applicant inter alia on the ground of mental cruelty. It appears that ex -parte decree in the petition for divorce was passed on 24 -4 -2006. Thereafter on an application moved by the non applicant wife under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC the ex -parte decree was set aside and the matter is under consideration before the competent Court.
(3.) IN this background the applicant moved an application sometime in the year 2008 under Sec. 6 of the 1956 Act for custody of her minor son Mayank then aged 6 years. The case of the applicant was that the non applicant was a mentally unstable woman, aggressive, prone to physical violence and incapable of looking after herself what after her minor son Mayank. It was stated that the welfare of child in the circumstances mandated that his custody be given to the applicant as he was his father and natural guardian, as on the date of filing application Mayank was 6 years old. In support of the application, the applicant aside of himself examined two other witnesses Anoj Kumar Jain AW -2 and Chandrabhan AW -3.;