JUDGMENT A.B. Srivastava, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.8.1979 passed by Shri A.B. Srivastava, District Judge, Varanasi whereby he allowed the application of the Respondent-mother u/s 6(A) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for custody of her son. 2. An application was moved by the Respondent Smt. Radha Devi on the ground that the Appellant in her husband and has turned her out off his house on 28.6.1978, whereupon she went along with her child named Rakesh to her parent's place. The Appellant, however, on 2.7.1978 forcibly took away the child and was thus depriving him o the guardianship and affection of the mother who is natural guardian, She also alleged that there was danger to the life of the child at the hands of the Appellant. The application was opposed by the Appellant who contended that it was the Respondent who on her own left for her parent's place leaving behind the son with Appellant who has been properly looking after the child whose future is properly secure in the guardianship of the Appellant. He also alleged that there is danger to life and security of the child at the hands of Appellant's mother-in-law. The learned District Judge by the impugned order permitted the Respondent to have custody of the child, and directed the Appellant to give the child in the custody of the Respondent with an observation that it would be open to the Appellant to claim custody of the child after he attains the age of more than five years. Aggrieved by the above order this appeal has been filed. 3. In this appeal, the Respondent, on whom notices were presumed to have been served by registered post, has failed to turn up and it has been heard exparte and I have also perused the materials placed on record. 4. At the very outset it may be mentioned that after filing of this appeal by an order dated 4.10.1979, the operation of the impugned order of the District Judge, Varanasi was stayed and notices were directed to be served on the Respondent. The said order was confirmed on 26,10.1989 in view of the fact that despite sufficient service, the Respondent did not turn up nor did she file any objection. The said order was confirmed on 26,10.1989 in view of the fact that despite sufficient service, the Respondent did not turn up nor did she file any objection. The position as on date, thus is that the child, Rakesh continues to be in the custody of his father, the Appellant. It being admitted that the child was aged about two years in 1978 when the application for custody was moved before the District Judge. At present the should be about 16 years of age. Under these circumstances, while deciding this appeal and considering the question of custody of child, notice has to be taken of these developments. 5. Now it being a fact that the child Rakesh age about 16 years continues to be in the custody of his father, the Appellant Banwasi Ram Verma, the question arises as to whether it is in the interest of the said child to order his custody to be delivered to his modern or he should be allowed to be in the custody and guarandship of his father. 6. Considering the fact that all these 14 long years child has remained with his father, the Appellant, it appears very much in his interest that he is allowed to remain in the same custody till he attain the age of majority. This will ensure his proper upbringing, as any abrupt change of custody at this stage will do more harm than good to him. This will be in keeping with the provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guarandship Act 1956 also. At the same time, however, a provision appears necessary in the interest of the minor himself, that he is allowed to visit and stay for the day with his mother, the Respondent once in a fortnight, preferably on a holiday. Subject to this condition, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appeal allowed. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the learned District Judge, directing the custody of Child Rakesh to be given to the Respondent is set-aside. The said child shall however be allowed by the Appellant to visit, and stay for the day, with his mother (respondent) once in a fortnight, preferably on a holiday. There is no order as to costs.