JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.: - Having remained unsuccessful in a petition filed under Sections 7/25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (In short “the Act”) for custody of minor son, namely, Kunal son of Shri Kiran Kumar and Smt. Rekha, the appellant has approached this Court by way of instant appeal challenging the judgment dated 3.2.2012 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage of the appellant with Smt. Rekha (daughter of the respondent) was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Nawada, District Gurgaon. It was a simple marriage as there was no demand of dowry. Out of the said wedlock, a son, namely, Kunal was born. Soon after the marriage, the family members of Smt. Rekha (since deceased) started causing interference in their matrimonial life. The appellant filed a divorce petition against his wife Rekha. However, during the pendency of the divorce petition, Smt. Rekha died in the month of December, 2005 and the said petition was withdrawn. In the month of February, 2005, Smt. Rekha had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance for herself and her son Kunal which was fixed at the rate of Rs.1000/- each for Smt. Rekha and her son Kunal by the trial court. The appellant paid the amount of interim maintenance upto December, 2005. The appellant being the father and natural guardian of minor child was entitled to have his custody who is residing with the respondent. The appellant asked the respondent to hand over the custody of the minor but to no avail and this gave cause to the appellant to file a petition under Sections 7/25 of the Act for the custody of the minor child, namely, Kunal. The said petition was contested by the respondent by filing a written statement. Various preliminary objections were raised in the written statement. It was pleaded that the appellant had not paid even a single penny to minor Kunal after the death of Rekha. It was further pleaded that the custody of the minor with the respondent was in the benefit and welfare of the child as since his birth, the child was living with his maternal grand parents. It was pleaded that the appellant had not paid even a single penny to minor Kunal after the death of Rekha. It was further pleaded that the custody of the minor with the respondent was in the benefit and welfare of the child as since his birth, the child was living with his maternal grand parents. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the custody of minor, namely, Kunal? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPR 4. Relief. 3. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties on record, decided issue No.1 against the appellant holding that since he had denied the paternity of the minor, therefore, the custody of the minor with him would not be in the interest and welfare of minor Kunal. Issues No.2 and 3 were decided against the respondent being not pressed. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment dated 3.2.2012 dismissed the petition. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant being the natural father of the minor be given custody of the minor. He further submitted that the trial court was in error in dismissing the petition filed under Sections 7/25 of the Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent besides supporting the order passed by the trial court submitted that the custody of the minor to the appellant was rightly declined. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 3.2.2012 shows that the appellant had denied the paternity of the child-Kunal. Even in the written statement filed to the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant had specifically pleaded that his wife be put to strict proof that she had given birth to a child. The trial court on appreciation of evidence on record came to the conclusion that minor Kunal was born to the wife of the appellant at the house of his maternal grand father. The trial court on appreciation of evidence on record came to the conclusion that minor Kunal was born to the wife of the appellant at the house of his maternal grand father. Further, to avoid the payment of maintenance awarded in his favour, the appellant filed a petition for custody of the minor. 8. The appellant had appeared in person along with his counsel and had sought to explain that under what circumstances in the written statement filed in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the paternity of child Kunal was denied. We have heard him and do not find any satisfactory reply. An affidavit was to be filed by the appellant as has been noticed in the order dated 4.11.2014 as to whether child Kunal is his son or not which is now sought to be controverted. But no affidavit has been filed. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the appellant or his counsel. Once, the paternity of child Kunal whose custody has now been sought from the respondent has been denied by the appellant, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial court for not handing over the custody of the child to the appellant. 9. In view of the above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. 10. There is a delay in filing and refiling the appeal. CM Nos. 6901-02-CII of 2013 have been filed for condonation of 55 days’ delay in filing and 164 days’ delay in refiling the appeal. The applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling are allowed and the delay is condoned. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————