JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - This order will dispose of FAO No. M-228 of 2003 and FAO No. 1113 of 2009, which is between the same parties and an outcome of the matrimonial dispute between them. 2. FAO No. M-228 of 2003 arises out of judgment and decree dated 280.08.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby, the petition of the respondent wife-Meena Rani seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce has been allowed and a decree of divorce has been passed. 3. FAO No. 1113 of 2009 arises out of the judgment and order dated 27.11.2008, passed by the learned Judge, Karnal, whereby the petition of the appellant-husband Multan Singh seeking custody of the minor son of the parties namely Akash under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been dismissed. 4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 16.02.1997. Meena Rani-respondent in her petition for divorce, alleged that her parents spent an amount of Rs.2 lacs on the marriage, besides, sufficient dowry was given. However, the family members of the appellant-husband were dissatisfied with the dowry and they demanded more dowry. They insisted that the respondent-wife should bring a colour T.V., Scooter and cash amount of Rs.25,000/-. The respondent-wife did not agree to the same. She informed her husband and her in laws that her parents had already spent a huge amount according to their capacity in the marriage and given sufficient dowry. As such, she was not in a position to ask for more. The parties to the marriage had a son namely Akash who was born on 13.02.1998. At the time of birth of the son, customary gifts were given but according to the respondent-wife, the appellant and his family members were dissatisfied with the same. It is alleged by the respondent that the appellant 2 was a heavy drinker. He used to return home late in the night in an inebriated state and used to beat her. Besides, she had come to know that he had ilicit relations with some other lady. Efforts were made by the appellant and his family to get rid of the respondent-wife. Panchayats were convened on several occasions but the dispute could not be settled. The respondent for no fault was turned out of the matrimonial house in January, 1999. Besides, she had come to know that he had ilicit relations with some other lady. Efforts were made by the appellant and his family to get rid of the respondent-wife. Panchayats were convened on several occasions but the dispute could not be settled. The respondent for no fault was turned out of the matrimonial house in January, 1999. Therefore, she filed the petition seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by way of a decree of divorce. 5. The appellant filed his written statement and the allegations of the respondent-wife were denied. It was alleged that the respondent had herself left her matrimonial home at the instigation of her father. Besides, she was a mischievous and a quarrelsome lady and had compelled him to live separately from the joint family. The appellant bowed to her dictates for buying peace. The allegations levelled by the respondent-wife against him, it is alleged, were concocted and baseless. According to the appellant, the respon­dent herself left his company and she filed a criminal complaint alleging commission of of­fences under Section 406 and 498A Indian Penal Code (‘IPC”-for short). The appellant was ready and willing to take the respondent to her matri­monial home. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 09.08.2002 :­- 1. Whether the petitioner (now respondent) is entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and harassment, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 3. Relief. The learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, after considering the evidence and materials on record, allowed the petition of the respondent-wife and passed a decree for divorce in favour of the respondent-wife. 7. During the pendency of the petition for di­vorce, the appellant-husband, on 10.03.2003, filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of his mi­nor son Akash. The said petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Guardian Judge, Karnal vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2008. Aggrieved against the same, the ap­pellant has filed FAO No. 1113 of 2009. 8. After admission, the appeals have been taken up and the parties are present in Court. 9. It is not in dispute that at one stage, the parties had entered into a compromise. A compromise dated 12.07.2002 has been placed on record as Annexure A-I with FAO No. M- 228 of 2003. 8. After admission, the appeals have been taken up and the parties are present in Court. 9. It is not in dispute that at one stage, the parties had entered into a compromise. A compromise dated 12.07.2002 has been placed on record as Annexure A-I with FAO No. M- 228 of 2003. The same is on the record of the learned trial Court as Mark-A. In terms of the said compromise, it was inter alia agreed that the parties to the marriage could not lead a happy married life and there were matrimonial litigations pending between the parties including one under Section 498-A I.P.C. titled as Meena Rani v. Multan Singh etc. and another under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ -for short) titled as Meena Rani v. Multan Singh and a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act titled Meena Rani v. Multan Singh. Meena Rani (respondent) had received Rs.80,000/- towards her dowry etc. It was agreed that there were no chance of the parties to the marriage to a live together as husband and wife and with the in­tervention of the respectables of the brotherhood and other common friends and relations, the parties to the marriage had reached at a compromise in terms of whIch Meena Rani-(respondent) was not to proceed with the case under Section 498A IPC and 125 Cr.P.C. Besides, the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was to be allowed thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties to the compromise. It was also agreed that the minor son of the parties namely Akash shall remain in the custody of Meena Rani (re­spondent) and Multan Singh (appellant) shall never claim his custody. 10. According to the learned counsel for the ap­pellant, despite the compromise (Annexure A-I), Meena Rani (respondent) backed out of the same. A reference has been made to the order dated 28.08.2003 passed by the learned Addi­tional District Judge, Panipat in the divorce peti­tion, wherein, it has been observed that PW-2 Meena Rani stated that no compromise was ef­fected between the parties nor she ever put her signature on it. She also stated that she does not remember the date as to when Panchayats were convened but whenever they used to beat her, panchayat was convened. She also stated that she does not remember the date as to when Panchayats were convened but whenever they used to beat her, panchayat was convened. It is stated that the re­spondent party (now appellant) never visited them for any compromise nor the same was arrived at between them. She also stated that no criminal case under Sections 406/498A IPC was withdrawn by her from the Court. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respon­dent has submitted that the statement of Meena Rani-PW 2 is inconsequential as her father Bharat Singh-PWI had accepted the compro­mise and Rs.50,000/- were agreed to be paid to the respondent towards dowry articles etc. It is stated that after withdrawal of the case the amount was not paid. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, on asking of the Court, has now stated on instruc­tions from the respondent that Rs.80,000/- was received by her. Besides, Bharat Singh PW -I in his cross-examination had also accepted that an amount of Rs.80,000/- was received by his daugh­ter. It is not in dispute that the case filed by the re­spondent-wife alleging commission of offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC was withdrawn by her vide order dated 12.07.2002 (Annexure A - 2 with 17 FAO No. M-228 of 2003) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat is on record. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the respondent-wife and son of the parties namely Akash was also withdrawn on 12.07.2002 and order of the learned Judicial f Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat (Annexure A-3 with FAO No. M-228 of 2003) is on record. Therefore, the terms of the compromise were complied with, which is now accepted by the respondent. In terms thereof, the petition for seek­ing divorce was to be caused to be allowed. In fact the same was/is an improper term of the compromise as the parties should have sought divorce by mutual consent and were not to collude to get divorce in a pending petition. In any case divorce has been granted by learned trial Court though with contest and not with consent. After the grant of divorce on 28.08.2003, it is informed that the respondent wife has solemnized her marriage on 28.04.2004 with one Vedpal and they have a daughter from the said marriage who is now aged about 7 years. In any case divorce has been granted by learned trial Court though with contest and not with consent. After the grant of divorce on 28.08.2003, it is informed that the respondent wife has solemnized her marriage on 28.04.2004 with one Vedpal and they have a daughter from the said marriage who is now aged about 7 years. Therefore, there being a settlement (Annexure A-I) between the parties for getting divorce and thereafter, the respondent having remarried, it would be just and expedient in the facts and circumstances to sustain and up­hold the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. 13. As regards the petition for custody of the mi­nor Akash, it may be noticed that in terms of the aforesaid compromise (Annexure A-I), the mi­nor son of the parties was to remain with the respondent. His date of birth as has already been noticed is 13.02.1998. At present, he is more than 15 years of age and would be 16 years of age in February, 2014. He has remained with his mother (respondent) and in terms of the compromise, he was to remain with her. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav R. Thakur and another v. Suchhi Bai, (2005)9 SCC 424 , for claim of custody of child, observed that the boy had been living with his grandparents by way of interim order since his father’s death when he was 6 years old. The boy had attained the age of 16/17 years when the appeal came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was held that boy had remained in care and custody of his grandparents for his entire life and it would not be appropriate to grant custody of the boy to his mother at the said stage. The child was old enough to know his own mind. However, mother could meet her son whenever she approaches her father-in-law. 14. In the present case as already noticed, the mi­nor is about to reach the age of 16 years in February, 2014. He is present in Court and we asked him whether he wants to go with his father. He categorically refused to go with him. Despite our requests and persuasions, he was quite determined and emotional not to meet him. He stated that he has never seen him. He is present in Court and we asked him whether he wants to go with his father. He categorically refused to go with him. Despite our requests and persuasions, he was quite determined and emotional not to meet him. He stated that he has never seen him. It may also be noticed that the appellant has never sought or filed any application for meeting minor-Akash during the pendency of the litigations and on the asking of the Court, he stated that he was not advised by his counsel. 15. Be that as it may, it is quite evident that the minor is not only somewhat reluctant but he is quite determined for not meeting the appellant. In similar circumstances in Gaytri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla, [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 308 : 2012(1) Marriage L.J. (SC) 52] : 2012(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 603 : 2012(5) Re­cent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 177 : 2013(2) PLR 295, it was observed by the Hon’ble Su­preme Court, in the said case that irrespective of the question whether the abandonment of visitation rights by the wife was occasioned by fraud or deceit practiced on her, as subsequently claimed, an attempt was made by the Supreme Court, even by means of a personal interaction with the children, to bring the issue with regard to custody and visitation rights to a satisfactory conclusion. From the materials on record, it was held possi­ble to conclude that the children, one of whom was on the verge of attaining majority, do not want to go with their mother. Both appeared to be happy in the company of their father who also ap­peared to be in a position to look after them; pro­vide them with adequate educational facilities and also to maintain them in a proper and con­genial manner. The children having expressed their reluctance to go with the mother, even for a short duration of time, their lordships, were left with no option but to hold that any visitation right to the mother would be adverse to the interest of the children. Besides, in view of the reluctance of the children to even meet their mother, leave alone spending time with her, their lordships did not see how such an arrangement, i.e., visitation could be made possible by an order of the Court. 16. Besides, in view of the reluctance of the children to even meet their mother, leave alone spending time with her, their lordships did not see how such an arrangement, i.e., visitation could be made possible by an order of the Court. 16. The said facts and circumstances of the said case would apply to the present case as well, as the minor Akash is reluctant to go to his father. It is quite evident that in case visitation rights are given, the order may remain unenforceable espe­cially when the minor has reached the age of dis­cretion and old enough to know his well being. Hopefully, when he attains the age of majority he would have no ill feeling or dislike for his father. In the circumstances, there is no merit in both the appeals and same are accordingly dismissed. ----------------