A. K. CHAKRAVARTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, l1th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 13 of 1986. ( 2 ) THE husband-respondent' filed the suit for divorce against the wife appellant on the ground of cruelty. The husband is a N. V. S. C. and is in service in New India Insurance Company Ltd,. The wife is a lecturer of Gokhale Memorial Girls' College. The marriage between the parties took place on 5. 5. 82. Husband's case was that there was some son of feeling between husband and wife immediately after the marriage but it soon became bitter. The wife refused to accompany him to Patna where he was posted. The wife had no love and respect to the parents of the husband and used to despise them as they had little cultural background and came from an upstart family. The husband came to Calcutta on 1. 8. 83 on transfer and while he was living in his father's place at Park Circus she stayed there for a short while living mostly at her father's house. The wife however, gave birth to a male child on 26. 9. 83, but even after the birth of the child she never cared to stay permanently with her husband even during her short stay at the husband's house. She never cared to look after the comforts of her husband's or her parents-in-law. The wife repeatedly insisted the husband to arrange for a separate flat and live there separately from his parents. The husband refused to oblige the wife as he was not willing to stay away from his parents. The husband alleged that the wife used to render extreme mental torture upon his as she was never willing to give her company to her husband or to live with him. After much persuasion the wife came to stay in her husband's father's house at Salt Lake on 1. 4. 84 but after staying there only for four days she suddenly left her matrimonial home on 5. 4. 84 without any reason whatsoever and since then, inspite of repeated requests, she did never come back to her husband's home. Since then she also did not allow her husband to see their child. 4. 84 but after staying there only for four days she suddenly left her matrimonial home on 5. 4. 84 without any reason whatsoever and since then, inspite of repeated requests, she did never come back to her husband's home. Since then she also did not allow her husband to see their child. The wife wrote threatening letters to husband while she stayed in her husband's house at Park Circus for short time. She used to pick up quarrels with the member of her husband's family on slightest pretext. According to the husband the wife thus failed to fulfill her matrimonial obligation to her husband by giving him her company. The wife also used to write letters 2o his Office boss so that he may loose his job and his career would be doomed. The husband on such allegations prayed for decree for divorce against the wife and also prayed for the custody of the child in the other suit. ( 3 ) THE wife in her written statements denied the allegations of the plaint. She alleged that her behaviour to the members of the husband's family was quite cordial at the relevant time and she always did her best to make them happy and comfortable. She further stated that she used to contribute Rs. 600/- per month from her pay to her father-in-law for the family. She stated that after the marriage the parents of her husband wanted that she would give whatsoever she was earning to her parent-in-laws to which she could not agree. She further alleged drat from the beginning the husband's mother was unkind to the new bore child and expressed her inability to attend to the child when she had to go to College for her duty. For that reason one Aya had to be engaged for the child. She '. admitted that she used to leave the house of her husband's sometimes due to paucity of accommodation in that house. The husband's father demanded a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from the wife to which she could not agree. There was a quarrel and the wife was compelled to leave the house of her husband. She denied that, she ever failed to discharge her marital obligation towards her husband. She further stated that out of sheer fear of physical harm and injury, she has forced to leave the house of her husband on 5. 4. There was a quarrel and the wife was compelled to leave the house of her husband. She denied that, she ever failed to discharge her marital obligation towards her husband. She further stated that out of sheer fear of physical harm and injury, she has forced to leave the house of her husband on 5. 4. 84. She denied that she ever insisted for a separate flat for them. She also denied she ever made any complaint against her husband to his higher officers in his Office. She stated that she is ever willing and ready to go her husband's house but her husband was neither ready and willing to take her there nor to live together as husband and wife. The wife also prayed that their child may be given to her custody. ( 4 ) AS many as five issues ware framed and the learned Trial Judge upon considerations of the evidence adduced by the parties was of the opinion that the wife was unwilling to live with her husband and that she perpetrated acts of mental cruelty upon her husband by writing false letter to his office jeopardising his career thereby. She intentionally left the house of her husband on 5. 4. 84 with the intention never to come back there once again so that husband may be pressurised to live his old parents and stay separately with her in a separate flat. The learned Trial Judge was also found her guilty of matrimonial offence by denying her company to her husband and perpetrating acts of mental cruelty upon him by ill treating him and his parents. Regarding the custody of the minor child learned Judge, however, was of the opinion that since the husband was engaged in a transferable job it will not be beneficial for the child to stay with his father and he accordingly directed that the custody of the minor child shall be with his mother. ( 5 ) THE above, findings of the learned Trial Judge were assailed in two appeals before this Court, one by the wife and the other by the husband. While the wife preferred the appeal challenging the order of the divorce the husband filed the appeal against the order or the custody of the child to his mother. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the marriage between the parties took place on 4. 5. While the wife preferred the appeal challenging the order of the divorce the husband filed the appeal against the order or the custody of the child to his mother. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the marriage between the parties took place on 4. 5. 82 and the child was born out of the said wedlock on 26. 9. 83. It is also an admitted fact that the wife left her matrimonial home for good on 5. 4. 84. Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury learned Advocate, appearing for the husband-respondent tried to divide the short period of marriage between the parties in three parts. The first part, according to him was the period up to the birth of the child during which time the relationship between the parties was cordial, the second part started from the birth of the child and ended on 31. 3. 84 while the third part started from 1. 4. 84 when she went to newly built house of her father-in-law at Salt Lake and ended on 5. 4. 84 when she left that house for good. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the third part will be crucial period and the conduct of the parties at this period is to be judged with care and caution with special reference to the event which has been alleged to be the cause of the wife's leaving her matrimonial home for good and if true, whether such cause forms enough justification for leaving her husband. According to him there was hardly any dispute between the parties till the birth of the child. He drew our attention to the letters and the evidence of PW-1 in this matter and submitted that the parties were not in fighting terms at that time. He further submitted that even assuming that the relationship between the parties turned sour at this point on time, till then the wife must be deemed to have condoned any matrimonial offence, even if there be any, by continued cohabitation at this time and also since she visited the house of her husband on 1. 4. and4 and had stayed there at least for some time. Mr. Roy Chowdhury drew our attention to her allegations in her written statement where she stated that shortly after marriage she realised that standard of living of her husband's family was very low and contrary to what was professed before the marriage. 4. and4 and had stayed there at least for some time. Mr. Roy Chowdhury drew our attention to her allegations in her written statement where she stated that shortly after marriage she realised that standard of living of her husband's family was very low and contrary to what was professed before the marriage. He further submitted that the real problem between the parties actually cropped up as the husband refused to accede to the wife's demand for living separately excluding the parents of her husband. Such attitude of the wife to live separately from the parents of her husband was not liked by the latter as a dutiful son of his parents. Mr. Roy Chowdhury further submitted that nothing serious seems to have happened which had caused the wife to leave the house at Salt Lake-in the morning on 5. 4. 84. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent-husband that such leaving of the matrimonial home by the wife all of a sudden and her refusal to return back amounts to wilful deprivation of her company to her husband. Mr. Roy Chowdhury also referred to her behaviour towards her parent-in-laws and submitted that she was prow to quarrel and used to leave her matrimonial home on one pretext or the other. Mr. Ray Chowdhury also drew our attention to the complaint made by her to the office of the husband and submitted that such action was taken intentionally for the purpose of jeopardising the career of the husband. ( 7 ) MR. Bidyut Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent-wife drew our attention to the series of letters exchanged between the parties and produced some of them before the Court. He submitted that initially, after the marriage the relationship between the parties were cordial and as a matter of fact the wife actually helped the husband in more ways than one so that he could built up his career and that she also took great pains to see that her parent-in-laws are living comfortably during the absence of her husband on transfer. After the husband came back to Calcutta on his transfer that the relationship between the parties started worsening. The reason for such worsening relationship has been attributed to the parents-in-law's demand for more many to the household and her refusal to do so. He pointed out that initially her contribution to the household was Rs. After the husband came back to Calcutta on his transfer that the relationship between the parties started worsening. The reason for such worsening relationship has been attributed to the parents-in-law's demand for more many to the household and her refusal to do so. He pointed out that initially her contribution to the household was Rs. 200/- per month and it was subsequently increased to Rs. 400ibut in view of the construction of the house of the father of the petitioner at Salt Lake the parent-in-laws of the wife demanded more contribution for her and wanted a loan of Rs. 15,000/ which she refused to lend. This, according to Mr. Banerjee, was the real reason of discord between the parties and the husband naturally sided with his parents causing further worsening of the relationship. Mr. Banerjee laid special stress on the attitude of the wife as demonstrated by her conduct on 1. 4. 84. He submitted that she would not have gone over 2o her husband's place unless she desired to stay over there and that she would not have left the house of her husband unless she was compelled to leave the house for some occurrence which made it impossible for her to stay in the house any more after 5. 4. 84. In this matter he referred to the evidence of the wife where she stared that since in the newly built house at Salt Lake the doors were not properly fitted on 1. 4. 84, they had to keep the door of the bed room ajar. She further stated that while she was lying with of her husband in the morning that she suddenly work up and saw her mother-in-law and maid-servant inside the room and as she protested against such intrusion in her bed room her mother-in-law started abusing her. She also stated that on 4. 4. 84 her father-in-law demanded Rs. 15,000/- for meeting the building expenses and on her refusal to pay the same her in-laws, specially the mother-in-law, started abusing her. On 5. 4. 84 her mother-in-law, abused her and when she protested her mother-in-law asked her husband, who was seeing the incident as mere spectator, to threw out such a wife like her, upon which the husband angrily warned her not to say anything more or else he would break her face and throttle her death. On 5. 4. 84 her mother-in-law, abused her and when she protested her mother-in-law asked her husband, who was seeing the incident as mere spectator, to threw out such a wife like her, upon which the husband angrily warned her not to say anything more or else he would break her face and throttle her death. She accordingly felt that she would have to face great danger if she says anymore in the house and she accordingly left the house with her son and went to the house of her father. Regarding the alleged incident of her lodging a complaint in the office of her husband making some allegations against him which was subsequently found to be false on enquiry, it will appear from the evidence of her material uncle, who actually lodged the complaint, and who deposed as P. W. 3 in this case that hearing the lodging of such complaint by him she became very much annoyed and requested the material uncle to mind his own business without trying to poke his nose in matters concerning her relationship with her husband, and that she threatened him that she would sever all connections with him unless he withdraw the complaint against her husband. Mr. Banerjee further submitted that the wife never expressed her unwillingness to go back to her husband's place but the adamant attitude of the husband prevented her from going there and instead of taking her back to his house, he filed the divorce suit on false ground acting in collusion with his parent-in-laws. The allegation filet there was perpetration of cruelty by the intentional desertion was thus controverted and the alleged misbehaviour with her husband and her parents-in-laws was also denied. ( 8 ) HEARD the submissions of the Ld. advocates on both sides, Admittedly the marriage between the parties took place on 20th April, 1982. The present suit for divorce at the instance of the husband was filed in 1986. It is also an admitted face that since the wife left her matrimonial home at Salt Lake on 5. 4. 84 the parties have not lived together. A child was born out of the said wedlock on 26. 9. 83. The present suit for divorce at the instance of the husband was filed in 1986. It is also an admitted face that since the wife left her matrimonial home at Salt Lake on 5. 4. 84 the parties have not lived together. A child was born out of the said wedlock on 26. 9. 83. It is also admitted that the parties are highly educated and they are holding responsible posts, the husband in fact holding a masters Degree of veterinary Science and working as Veterinary Officer in the rank of Administrative Officer. The respondent is an M. A. in English from the Calcutta University and is now working as a lecturer in the Gokhale Memorial Girls' College, Calcutta. The parties are the only son and daughter of the respective parents. It appears from the trends of the letters produced as exhibits in this case as well as from the evidence of the witnesses that before the birth of the child on 26. 9. 83 the relationship between the parties were more or less cordial. It appears from the evidence of the wife that after the delivery of the child, wife was staying in her father's place and it was only on 1. 4. 84 that she came with the child to her husband's father's newly built house at Salt Lake for living there which seems to be quite natural. Nothing appears from the evidence of the husband as to why his wife suddenly left the matrimonial home on 5. 4. 84. He merely denied the allegations in the written statement. In this matter the evidence of the wife seems to be more clear. She stated in her evidence that she was not received well in the father-in-law's house and that their bed room was converted into drawing room-cum-bed mom without any furniture for which she had to remain in balcony in the afternoon. She also referred to the incident happening in that house when her mother-in-law and maid-servant entered into their bed room in the morning interfering with her privacy thereby. About the incident which led to her leaving the house at Salt Lake on 5. 4. 84. She stated in her evidence that on 4. 4. 84 when she refused to accede to her father-in-law's request to pay 12s. 15,000/- to him, her. About the incident which led to her leaving the house at Salt Lake on 5. 4. 84. She stated in her evidence that on 4. 4. 84 when she refused to accede to her father-in-law's request to pay 12s. 15,000/- to him, her. parent-in-laws created a scene and her mother-in-law made the Scene worse by shouting in a loud voice. Thereafter on 5. 4. 84 her mother-in-law started abusing the ;wife by using words like gutter's snip and uneducated filthy woman and that our of their kindness she had been allowed entry into the house and that her parents were cheat and they had not paid articles which they premised to give in the marriage. It will further appear from the evidence of the wife that as she protested, her mother-in-law urged her husband to teach her a lesson, upon which her husband told her angrily that he would break her face and would throttle her. In this matter we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the wife because unless something serious had happened the wife who had gone to her husband's place only a few days back with the intention to stay there with her husband would not have left the house all of a sudden within such a short tree unless she felt that there might be danger for herself and her child if she stayed there any more. In the above background of the case it is necessary now to consider whether any cruelty was perpetrated by the wife upon her husband by leaving the house of her husband and staying away from the same. Another point which would require consideration is whether the allegations made by the maternal uncle of the wife to the office of the husband imputing commission of certain illegal acts would meant to cruelty for the purpose of Hindu Marriage Act. ( 9 ) MR. Bidyut Banerjee referred to the case of Sulekha Bairagi vs, Kamala Kanta Bairagi and others reported in AIR 1980 Calcutta 370 where it was held to that in order to constitute cruelty as a ground for divorce a reasonable apprehension in the mind that it is harmful and injurious to live with the husband or wife, as the case may be, has got to be proved. Here, in this case, there is no such allegation by the husband that he had reasonable apprehension in the matter as stated above. That point also has got to be stated in the evidence but there is nothing in the evidence of the husband to that effect. " It was also held in the said decision that absence of direct complicity of the wife into the alleged act of filing of false complaint does not merit divorce. In the instant case the maternal uncle of the wife, deposing as PW-3 in this case, has stated that he was never requested by her niece to lodge any complaint in the office of the husband. Rather he lodged the complaint on his own initiative to teach the husband a lesson and he further deposed that he was reprimanded by is niece for filing such complaint and he was threatened by her that she would sever her all connection with him unless he withdraws the complaint. The wife's complicity in the act of lodging of complaint therefore cannot be said to have been proved. Our attention were. also drawn to the decision in Pranab Biswas vs. Mrinmoyee Dasi reported in AIR 1976 Cal. 156 where it was held that mental reaction of the other party for the alleged act of cruelty has to be stated specifically which was not done in this case. Regarding lodging of complaint our attention was drawn to the case of Santwana Banerjee vs. Sachindra Nath Banerjee reported in 1991 (1) CLJ 53 where it was held that a complaint must have to be lodged by the wife and not by others. Mr. Banerjee also drew our attention to the case of Gorachand Des vs. Dipali Das reported in 1983 (1) CLJ 411 where it was held that ordinary wear and tear of married life may constitute very many undesirable things but these are not cruelties. Our attention was also drawn to the case of Alaka Dey vs. Mrinal Kanti Dey reparted in Alit 1973 Calcutta 393 where it was held that outburst of temper with rancour ptrtly occasioned by husband's conduct and also condoned by him (cohabitation throughout proved) would not be such cruelty as would support the petition for judicial separation. ( 10 ) MR. ( 10 ) MR. Banerjee further contended that since the wife left the house no opportunity was given to her to compromise the matter and had that been done the matter might have been settled. It may be true than the wife wanted to live separately with her husband in a separate flat as she was increasingly finding it difficult to stay with the parents of her husband in the snare house. It is also true that as a considerate son he was fully alive to the difficulties of his parents at their old age and he accordingly refused to accept tire demand of his wife. According to Mr. Roychowdhury it was unethical on the part of the wife to insist upon her husband for a septrate living in such circumstances particularly when she was allowed the entry into the house by her parent-in-laws. It is immaterial whether such attitude on the part of the wife was ethical or unethical as even after she left the house at Salt Lake, she never wanted to sever her relationship with her husband as it will appear from a letter dated 27. 4. 84 [vide Ext. 2 (b)j. The last letter exhibited, in this case is dated 28. 8. 84. The letters that were exchanged between the parties in the meantime are full of allegations and counter-allegations and that was quite natural, in view of the fact that the mutual relationship was getting embittered day by day. The next letter is Ext. 3 written by tile father of the wife warning the husband not to misbehave with his wife in the absence of any male member in the house. The next letter is Ext 3 (b) dated 9. 7. 84 where the husband has denied some allegations and requesting the wife to consider whether it is better to stay in the husband's family. The other letter is Ext. 3 (c) dated 7. 8. 84 written by the wife to the husband within which time the lawyer's letter for divorce had already been served. Out of natural exasperation the wife made some allegations and demanded money for the maintenance of the child. The next letter is dated 18. 8. 84 Ext. 3 (e ). In this letter also the husband requested the wife to come back with the son and informed her positively that he would not arrange a separate flat for themselves. Out of natural exasperation the wife made some allegations and demanded money for the maintenance of the child. The next letter is dated 18. 8. 84 Ext. 3 (e ). In this letter also the husband requested the wife to come back with the son and informed her positively that he would not arrange a separate flat for themselves. Even in this letter she stated that "i believe in the institution of marriage and will not allow the relationship to break" but she expressed her desire to stay with him out of the hostile atmosphere and evil influence. Judged in the background that the notice of divorce had already been issued the last letter dated 28. 7. 84 inviting the wife to return back to her matrimonial home is a sheer hypocrisy and must have been issued for the purpose of creating evidence in his favour. ( 11 ) IT is clear, therefore, that there was no genuine attempt on the part of the husband to bring back his wife to her matrimonial home. It may be that the wife expressed her desire to stay separately with her husband but that in all circumstances cannot be said to be unjust or meriting to constitute a ground of cruelty. For the purpose our attention was drawn to the decisions in Kamal Kr. Basu v. Kalyani Basu reported in AIR 1988 Calcutta 111 where it was held that a wife may ask for husband's company exclusively. In the instant case, the circumstances under which she had to leave the house may not be considered to be unreasonable as chances of her pursuasion by her parent-in-laws were always there for her refusal to part with her entire income and accordingly her demand to set up a new home in a new flat exclusively for themselves was justified. ( 12 ) MR. Roychowdhury, learned Advocate for the husband drew our attention to the decisions in Dastane v. Dastane reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 where it is held that it is preponderance of probabilities which would be the necessary criterian for deciding whether any matrimonial offence has been committed or not and that no uniform test is permissible in matrimonial case and the standard of proof required will be as it is in ordinary civil cases. He also drew our attention to the other decisions reported in AIR 1988 SC 121 and AIR 1989 Calcutta 120 where it ix held that making of false and frevolous allegations by one spouse against the other recklessly would amount to cruelty and even such reckless allegations in the written statement also amount to same thing. In the instant case we have already shown that the allegations to the office of the husband were not made by the wife herself. The wife in her evidence denied that she asked her maternal uncle Hemendra Nath Pundit to lodge complaint against her husband. She also stated that she expressed her dissatisfaction of such acts as she told him that he has committed a great mistake by making the complaint without letting her know the matter. Hemendra Nath Pandit also deposed as PW. 3 in this case. He also stated that his niece never asked him to lodge any such complaint and what was done was done on his own responsibility. In the aforesaid circumstances, the wife cannot be blamed. It may be that some letters of the husband to the wife were produced before the enquiring officer. It may be that the wife actually handed over the papers for the purpose of the suit, which the maternal uncle being over zealous, used without the knowledge of the wife. We do not find any reason to disbelieve that this part of the evidence of the wife because had it been her intention to malign her husband in his office, she herself could have the complaint which was not done in this case. In the aforesaid circumstances, there are not sufficient materials in this case for associating the wife with lodging of the complaint and that being so the alleged cruelty for filing false complaint cannot be said have been proved. ( 13 ) IN this connection, reference may be made to the case of Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat reported in AIR 1994 SC 710 where it been held that what is a cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. "if it is a case of cruelty by making of allegations regard must be had to the context in which they were made. " Any particular incident or statement should not be treated as cruelty. We have already shown. "if it is a case of cruelty by making of allegations regard must be had to the context in which they were made. " Any particular incident or statement should not be treated as cruelty. We have already shown. that allegations and statements made under emotional stress or anger by the wife should not be treated as cruelty. In the case reported in AIR 1988 Calcutta 111 it was held two elements on the part of the deserting spouse, namely, factom of withdrawal and accompanying intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end must exist. Besides absence of his/her consent and absence of conduct giving reasonable cause of diserting spouse to form animus deserendi would also be necessary. In the instant case we have already started the circumstances which led the wife to leave the house of her father-in-law at Salt Lake. There was therefore good and sufficient reason of the wife, who being educated and prudent enough to judge the effect of her decision, to leave her matrimonial home as she was apprehensive of physical injury to herself and the child if she stays over there. In the aforesaid circumstances, her request to her husband to arrange for a separate home for themselves where they can live together with her child peacefully without being hampered by the presence of others cannot but be considered to be quite reasonable. For this purpose reference may be made to the case reported in AIR 1957 Madras 697 where it was held that claim of the wife to live separately from her husband's relatives is not cruelty as she has right to live happily with her husband. ( 14 ) IN The aforesaid circumstances, the wife having good reason for leaving her matrimonial home specially in view of the fact that her finer sentiments and suseptabilities as educated and cultured lady was mortally wounded by the acts of her husband's parents-in law and specially the mother-in law and in the absence of accompanying intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end the cruelty, as alleged, cannot be said to have been proved. There is also no sufficient materials on record to hold that the wife misbehaved or quarrelled with her husband or member of his family. Those allegations have also not been proved. There is also no sufficient materials on record to hold that the wife misbehaved or quarrelled with her husband or member of his family. Those allegations have also not been proved. ( 15 ) EVEN though we have decided that in this particular case that the alleged cruelty as a ground for divorce has not been proved by the husband against the wife, still then, as Mr. Roychowdhury argued that marriage has irretrievably broken it is necessary to point out that the law on the point is that the Court should be hesitant to grant a decree for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breaking down of marriage as that is not a ground for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act. The party seeking divorce must prove strictly the grounds made by him/her in his/her case for obtaining such a decree. For this purpose reference may be made to the reported decisis of Bhagat's case (supra ). ( 16 ) THE alleged ground of cruelty having thus not been proved as shown above by us. We are not in a position to agree with the findings arrived at by the Ld. Addl. District Judge. ( 17 ) THE appeal in F. A. No. 349 of 1990 accordingly be allowed and the judgment and decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 13 of 1986 are hereby set aside and accordingly stands dismissed. ( 18 ) REGARDING the custody of the child which is the subject matter of F. A. No. 136 of 1991 it appears that Ld. Trial Judge has held, while the child was of six years of age at the time when the judgment was delivered on 15. 2. 90, that the "respondent wife has her mother in her house and site works as a lecturer in a College. I think for the proper welfare and the education of the child, the child should be given to stay with the mother. The husband holds a transferable job and as such it will not be beneficial for the child to stay with his father, that is the petitioner. From the evidence in the case record I hood that the custody of the minor child should be oven to the mother that is the respondent for proper care and growth of the manor child. From the evidence in the case record I hood that the custody of the minor child should be oven to the mother that is the respondent for proper care and growth of the manor child. " ( 19 ) WE do not find any reason to disagree with the above findings of the Ld. Trial Judge and for this purpose we may refer to the case reported in 73 CWN 721 where it was held that though under Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act, if a father is not unfit to be the guardian of the child under Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardians Act, the prime and sole consideration will be the welfare of the minor. In another case reported in AIR 1982 SC 792 it was held that it is well-settled that in matters concerning the custody of the minor children the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and not the legal right of this or that particular party. In the instant case we fully agree with the reasons given by the Ld. Trial Judge in his judgment in justification for his order for granting custody of the child to his mother. This appeal accordingly must fail and the judgment and order of the Ld. Trial Judge is hereby affirmed, in so far as this appeal is concerned. F. A. No. 136 of 1991 is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals. S. K. Mookherjee, J.-I agree. Appeal disposed of of.