JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kapurthala on 25.2.2011, whereby an application to remove the ward, minor-Simarjit Kaur to Australia on Orphan Relative Visa from India to Australia on permanent basis on the sponsorship of Balwinder Kaur @ Goldie, the sister of her father namely Davinder Singh was declined. 2. Out of the wedlock of Davinder Singh (since deceased) and Gurpreet Kaur @ Gurpal Kaur-respondent No. 2, a female child i.e. Simarjit Kaur was born on 1.10.1996. Davinder Singh died on 15.4.1998 and soon thereafter, the mother left to her matrimonial home. By virtue of an order dated 9.6.2007 (Exhibit A-1), the appellant was appointed as the guardian of the person and property of the minor. 3. Appellant subsequently sought intervention of the Court for permanent immigration of the minor to Australia on the sponsorship of her father’s sister i.e. Balwinder Kaur (his daughter) as such immigration will provide better opportunities for studies. 4. Learned trial Court dismissed the said application for the reason that such immigration amounts to abuse of process of law as the permission for sending the minor to Australia on Orphan Relative Visa is not in the interest of minor. 5. In the present appeal, respondent No. 2 has put in appearance and filed an affidavit dated 17.12.2011. In the said affidavit, she has categorically averred that she has no objection, if permission is granted to the appellant for sending the girl of the deponent to Australia on permanent basis on the sponsorship of Balwinder Kaur. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has pointed out that father’s sister of the minor i.e. Balwinder Kaur, who is sponsoring the immigration of the minor-Simarjit Kaur, is working as Pathological Assistant in Australia and has no child of her own. It is also contended that the Orphan Relative Visa is in nomenclature of Visa which facilitates the immigration of a children like the minor child i.e. Simarjit Kaur in the present appeal but such immigration would be in her interest for the purpose of better education and better opportunities in life. 7. It is also contended that the Orphan Relative Visa is in nomenclature of Visa which facilitates the immigration of a children like the minor child i.e. Simarjit Kaur in the present appeal but such immigration would be in her interest for the purpose of better education and better opportunities in life. 7. Keeping in view the fact that there is no objection from respondent No. 2 who is the natural mother of the minor and that the child will have better options for education and for settlement, we find that there is no reason to deny the permission for immigration of the child to Australia. The grandfather of the minor is 62 years of age whereas the mother of the child has categorically stated on affidavit that appellant will be responsible for the good or bad of the minor girl-Simarjit Kaur and she has no concern with her in-laws family. 8. In view of the said fact, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order dated 25.2.2011 passed by the learned trial Court. The appellant and/or Balwinder Kaur are permitted to seek permanent immigration of the minor namely Simarjit Kaur and permit to go abroad on Orphan Relative Visa or any such other Visa. 9. Disposed of in the above terms. --------------