Judgment Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, J. 1. The present revisional application is directed against Order Nos. 29 & 30 dated 2.9.94 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 101 of 1993. By the impugned order a petition under s. 38 of the Special Marriage Act for custody was disposed of. The present proceeding has a chequered career. There appears to be an irreconcilable difference between the parties to this marriage which embittered the relationship between the parties resulting in protracting litigation. The same was preceded by initiation of a spate of criminal proceedings initiated by the wife against the husband, and the husband has been attempted to be roped on a number of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The same having been withdrawn it was followed up by filing defamation proceeding at the instance of the husband and attitude of the respective parties is to punish each other. In the back-drop of the same out of the said marriage a female child was born sometime on 19th June, 1985. This Court while proceeding further on the matter has noted that at this juncture the child has become the central figure of the controversy. This Court in this case is concerned with human problem affecting the future of a little child. This Court is further made to exercise its introspection that a person is made to be born with his or her consent and such person is made to bear the cross of hazard of the pangs of life when the child is not a consenting party. The acts of recrimination of the partners of life seem to be found being visited in the conspectus of the scenario of the life of growing child. The task of this Court is indeed and undoubtedly difficult and delicate. The case being shorn of details, the allegation is from the side of the mother was that she was driven away from the marital house on 4th June, 1992 and subsequently a First Information Report was lodged. On the basis of the said First Information Report the husband as well as his relations were arrested. The case being shorn of details, the allegation is from the side of the mother was that she was driven away from the marital house on 4th June, 1992 and subsequently a First Information Report was lodged. On the basis of the said First Information Report the husband as well as his relations were arrested. After initiation of the said criminal proceeding the police is reported to have visited the marital house of the parties on a given date at midnight on 2.15 hrs and the child was awaken from bed at the dead of night by police as alleged. The child was overtaken by a feeling trauma and fear psychosis at midnight and the child was found to be mortally afraid of the presence of the police personal. This Court is not inclined to make any observation about the unpleasant episode, but the impression which is gathered by this Court that in order to adopt a punitive role to deal with an alleged sinner, a sin has been invited at the instance of the wife as a result of which the little female child had to bear the burnt of the aberration of adult life. There are series of allegations and counter allegations against the respective parties. But this Court feels that ordinarily police should not be allowed to disturb the sleep of a child of such tender age when she is found asleep in bed. The social scenario of the welfare state may be threatened to be affected because of the knocking of the door of a bed room of a child by police whose role unfortunately in this country is to primarily to deal with persons who go on the wrong track of law. This Court wonders as to why and how the police personnel be activated to enter into a bed room of a child in her premises at midnight and 'in all fairness police ought to have waited till the advent of the dawn. This Court being a delegated representative of the paramount sovereign is conscious of its obligation to protect the permanent welfare of the children in the society and in order to achieve the object the parental rights should be shelved in the background and it is necessary even for the superior forum to lay down the guildelines to clip the wings of "Leviathan". This Court feels disturbed by looking into the social scenario and this Court further feels that all Subordinate Courts should be cautions and circumspect in directing police to deal with tender emotions of children of such tender age more carefully as friends of the society. Of course by way of a strait-jacket formula police cannot be prohibited to deal with such situation but certainly it does not mean that police has a free hand to do anything and everything by dealing with such high-handed manner with a child. The child through her interview appears to be a victim of fear psychosis and she was pleading that the presiding Judge was to keep her away at a safe distance from the police. The hearing of the child from the tremor has appealed to this Court and this Court hereby directs all the Subordinate Courts to keep police under restrictions, with specific guidelines and continuous vigil of the Court concerned in dealing with the children of tender age. 2. Apart from the general observations made in this order the Court is now proposing to deal with the order 'impugned which is under challenge. 3. From the plain reading of the impugned order it manifestly appears that the order impugned is one of non-speaking nature. The learned trial Judge has referred to the interview of the Court with the child, but has not whispered anything about the interview and he has refused to record the same on the ground of the welfare of the child. Justice must appear to have been done and parties seeking justice have right to know as to what has happened. Such attitude of conspicuous silence maintained by the Court about the interview of the child does not find support of this revisional forum and on that score coupled with the non-speaking nature of the same this Court is not in a position to sustain the impugned order. By a subsequent order some unfortunate observations have been made about the learned Advocate for the respondent wife in the trial and the same has been branded as causing impediment to the carriage of justice. Such high-handed observations should not have found place in a judicial order as after all lawyers are part and parcel of the entire system of administration of justice. Such high-handed observations should not have found place in a judicial order as after all lawyers are part and parcel of the entire system of administration of justice. This Court accordingly deletes the said observation, and also sets aside the subsequent order being Order No. 30 as well as Order No. 29. There appears to be no proper adjudication of the matter in the trial court in accordance with law with regard to the disposal of a petition for custody. In order No. 29 the learned Judge has only referred to one element namely, the element of interview and not on other elements which are necessary to be taken into account as they will guide the disposal of a petition for custody. 4. It is not out of context to make a reference to the provisions of s. 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act and in that section it has been laid down that in considering the welfare of a minor the Court should have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relationship of the proposed guardian with the minor of his property. 5. Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the case of Thirty Hoshiam Dolikuka-Appellant vs. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka-Respondent, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1276 and Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that the Supreme Court has laid down that interview of the child should not be taken very seriously as the child is likely to be tutored one as the child is found to be in proximity with one of the parents who may be poisoning the ears of the child against the other parents. But the facts of the cited decision do not tally with the facts of the present case because the prerequisite conditions are that child has no intelligent preference and child was found equally attached to both the parents. But the facts of the cited decision do not tally with the facts of the present case because the prerequisite conditions are that child has no intelligent preference and child was found equally attached to both the parents. The facts as delineated in the cited case rotate round a finding that father out of spite against the mother is not willing to allow the child to stay with the mother and he is obsessed with the idea of exclusive control of the child and he was found poisoning the mind of the child. Here in this case a cryptic reference was made about the interview of the child by the trial Court. This Court also took interview of the said child born of this marriage and the said child after becoming familiar with the presiding Judge when he won over her confidence, the child gave a narration of the episode as to how and in what manner she was snatched away from her bed while she was in sleep forcibly by the police. The child complained about the mother because according to the assessment of the said child the mother is an invitee of the presence of the police at midnight while she was asleep. The mother, according to the child has ceased to be the symbol of her security. Of course, the impression as formel by the Court has been attempted to be expressed in its own language and the child is found somehow associating mother with the police. This Court depricates such episode because it is likely to have a far reaching impact and deleterious bearing on the emotional frame of a child in her impressionable age. The learned Advocate representing the case of the mother has been cautioned that she should not embark into such perilous journey in future because it is likely to rebound on her. The child further stated in the interview that her stay with her mother in company of the matrimonial uncle' is neither congenial nor convenient. The child felt that she was an unwanted person in the house of the maternal uncle. Even the child narrated the sequence of acrimonious quarrel between the mother and the maternal uncle. It is ironical to note that the child complained to this Court in Chamber that why should the elders fight and quarrel. That should be confined only to young children. Even the child narrated the sequence of acrimonious quarrel between the mother and the maternal uncle. It is ironical to note that the child complained to this Court in Chamber that why should the elders fight and quarrel. That should be confined only to young children. This Court is touched with the wisdom expressed from the innocence of such child and also feels that the child has some intelligence coupled with wisdom which elders lack in modern society. Children should not be relegated to the position of chattels and parental rights should be relegated to the background keeping in view the welfare of the child. After taking stock of the entire background of the case on the factual score, this Court feels that all its aspects should be gone into in great details and opinion of the child should also be taken note of coupled with other factors. There has been reference of citations of other decisions including that of the landmark decision of Anne Besant's case and the propositions of law are well known. This Court in spite of being assisted by propositions of law finds its task difficult and delicate so that welfare of the child may be preserved. This Court further directs that the ingredients of s. 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act should also be applied in the present case while arriving at an inference about the welfare. However, after taking note of the version of the child in her interview as the child was made to undergo great amount of ordeal, this Court feels that status quo with regard to custody should be maintained till the matter is heard out by the trial Court in terms of the directions given: hereinbefore. This Court further directs that in view of the observations made by the learned Judge in the subsequent order, this matter should not be heard by the said learned Judge and it should be heard by somebody else so that no misgiving may be there in the minds of the litigants. The father will continue to have exclusive custody of the child by the name of Manideepa and the father opposite party will be accountable for welfare of the child during the period of his custody on the said child. The father will continue to have exclusive custody of the child by the name of Manideepa and the father opposite party will be accountable for welfare of the child during the period of his custody on the said child. The trial Court is directed to expeditiously hear out the matter in terms of the directions and is also further directed to take another interview of the child to assess her mind and inclination and to draw inference so that opinion can be formed that the child has not been tutored at the time of interview. It is desired that the petition for custody should be remanded to the trial Court after the impugned orders are set aside and it should be heard out and disposed of preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. During the pendency of the said case, the mother petitioner will have access once in a week at the house of the Special Officer for two hours and both parties to the proceedings will be required to maintain proper decorum and decency at the time of the interview of the child. Any adverse report given about the conduct of either of the parties at the time of access of the child by the mother will have its bearing on the role of such parents and they will be required to be considered in assessing the question of welfare of the said child. The date and time of every week will be notified by the Special Officer concerned and as the child is a female one, a lady Advocate is hereby appointed as the Special Officer and such Special Officer shall have liberty even to report about any development of situation to this Court for taking necessary clarifications. 6. This Court hereby appoints Sm. Rani Srimal, an Advocate and a Member of the Bar Association of this Court, as Special Officer and her remuneration is hereby fixed at the rate of Rs. 850/- (Rupees eight hundred fifty) only per month which will be proportionately borne by the father at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and by the mother at the rate of Rs. 350/- (Rupees three hundred and fifty) only. The payments may be effcted through the respective learned Advocates-on-Record of the parties. 7. 850/- (Rupees eight hundred fifty) only per month which will be proportionately borne by the father at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and by the mother at the rate of Rs. 350/- (Rupees three hundred and fifty) only. The payments may be effcted through the respective learned Advocates-on-Record of the parties. 7. The revisional application thus stands disposed of with a direction for re-hearing of the petition for custody in the lines as indicated hereinbefore. 8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 9. The learned Special Officer is permitted to take down note of the gist of this order for her own •purpose. 10. Let this order be communicated to the court below expeditiously. Revisional application allowed, the impugned orders set aside and the matter sent back for re-hearing in accordance with direction given.