- (1.) THE office objection dated 09.05.2011 is dispensed with.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellant on merit of the case. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Appellant is the father of the child and custody of whom wrongly denied by the trial court only on the ground that the Appellant, when was contesting the maintenance case filed by the Respondent mother of the child, submitted his reply to the maintenance application denying the son to be his own son born from the womb of his own wife/Respondent.
(3.) THIS fact is not disputed and cannot be disputed, in view of the fact that this fact had come out of the averments made in the court in reply to the Maintenance Application No. 30/2009. If a father can go to that extent, then certainly he cannot be entitled to the custody of the child when custody of the son is already with the mother since long. The appeal of the Appellant is dismissed having no merit.;