Judgment B. L. Yadav, S. K. Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal by the husband of the respondent under Sec.19 (1)of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , against the order dated 25th August, 1995, passed by the Principal Judge, Family court, Patna, in a proceeding under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing the appellant, the husband, to produce the child named Kumari sonam Born from the wedlock of the parties in Court on 28th September, 1995, so that the child may be handed over to the mother-respondent where she will stay during Durga Puja vacation. 2. Shorn of all its ramifications, the facts are that the present appellant, the father of the child, has initiated proceedings against his wife smt. Ranjana praying for a decree for divorce on the grpund that the respondent is abnormal and she has deserted him. These averments were, however, refuted by the respondent, the mother of child Sonam. Ultimately, the question arose as to who shall have the custody of the minor child kumari Sonam, a female child, who was born on 4.7.1987. An application for the custody of the child was given by the mother. 3. The case of the respondent-mother was that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home on 7.10.1991 and since then she is living with her parents. Her further case was that she was keeping the child affectionately and carefully till 7.10.1991 when she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The child was taken by the father to Bhagalpur on the pretext of her education. 4. The matter received the attention of this Court at earlier stage in C. R. No.2114 of 1994 (Bijay Kumar Prasad V/s. Smt. Ranjana)disposed of on 25.1.1995. The child was taken by the father to Bhagalpur on the pretext of her education. 4. The matter received the attention of this Court at earlier stage in C. R. No.2114 of 1994 (Bijay Kumar Prasad V/s. Smt. Ranjana)disposed of on 25.1.1995. In that case, Hon ble S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. made the following observation:- "so far as production of the child, in question, is concerned, the petitioner states that whenever the opposite party makes application before the Court below for production of the child so that she can meet her and see her, the petitioner on direction from the Court below, will produce the child in the Court wherein the opposite parly can see the child :" In view of the above observation, it is obvious that learned brother mukhopadhya, J. at an earlier stage of the case has taken the view that the child can be produced in Court where the mother would be able to see her. Pursuant to that order, the child was produced in Court on 24th June, 1995. The respondent wanted to meet the child for a few more hours, which was not possible in Court so a direction was given on 24th June, 1995 to the appellant to produce the child at the residence of his brother at Patna on 7th July, 1995 and leave the child there till 20.7.1995 where the respondent-mother would again meet her child and be with her as and when she desired. The visit of the respondent to the house of the brother of the appellant had a very had effect. The respondent wanted to take away the child but at that moment there was a quarrel between them and the police was to be summoned. Both the parties were taken to police station. The respondent says that she was not allowed to meet the child whereas the case of the appellant was that the child was asked to meet the mother. The story of the respondent was, however, different. In this view, it is clear that earlier the child was produced at the residence of the brother of the appellant but meeting was disrupted on account of quarrel between the appellant and the respondent and the police had to be summoned. The story of the respondent was, however, different. In this view, it is clear that earlier the child was produced at the residence of the brother of the appellant but meeting was disrupted on account of quarrel between the appellant and the respondent and the police had to be summoned. All this aspect and other materials have been considered by the family Court and the child was directed to be handed over to the respondent during Durga Puja vacation this year. 5 The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that appellant, the father was maintaining the child, Kumari Sonam in a very careful and in a better way than the mother, the respondent, but the Family court erred in law in passing the impugned order directing the appellant to hand over the child to the respondent. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Chandra Prabha V/s. Prem Nath Kapur [a. I. R.1969 Delhi 283]. 6. The point for our consideration is the principles governing the welfare of the minor child. Sec.6 of the hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 posits about natural guardians of a Hindu minor. The specific provisions is that normally a child below five years age shall remain under the guardianship of mother. It simply means that under certain circumstances the guardianship can be with father also. Sec.17 of the guardians and Wards Act, 1890 provides that in appointment of guardian to a minor child, the welfare of the minor shall be the principal consideration, keeping in view the age, sex and religion of the minor. Under section 7 however, it has been enacted that in respect of guardianship an order would be made only when it is for the welfare of the minor. Sec.7 of the Family Courts Act 1984, provides that in matters of decree for nullity of marriage or judicial separations etc. only Family Court shall have jurisdiction, it shall have jurisdiction to pass an order of interim injunctions etc. in connection with guardianship or custody of a minor. But these are the piece of social beneficient legislation and while interpreting it purposive approach must be made so that it furthers the beneficial object envisaged by the legislation. only Family Court shall have jurisdiction, it shall have jurisdiction to pass an order of interim injunctions etc. in connection with guardianship or custody of a minor. But these are the piece of social beneficient legislation and while interpreting it purposive approach must be made so that it furthers the beneficial object envisaged by the legislation. In Smt. Chandra Prabha V/s. Prem Nath Kapur [a. I. R.1969 Delhi 283] supra was relied upon by the appellants counsel was also a case where principle of the welfare of the child was emphasized and appeal of the mother was allowed. It does not help the appellant, the father. It depends upon the facts of every case, keeping in view the welfare of the child as to whether the child can be sent to the custody of the father or the mother. There are a catena of decisions of the Apex Court on the subject. In the case of Veena Kapoor V/s. Virendra Kumar [a. I. R.1982 S. C.792] their Lordships of the Apex Court ruled that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration and not the rights of the parties [see Rosy Jackob V/s. Jackob, A. I. R.1973 S. C.2090, Thirty Hoshie Dolikuka V/s. Hoshiani S. Doli Kuka, A. I. R.1982 s. C.1276]. The welfare of the child has been considered by the learned principal Judge Family Court. In the case of Kartikumar Maheshanker Joshi v. P. K. Joshi [judgments Today (1992) (3) S. C.195, decided on 4.5.1992] it was held by the Apex Court that the welfare of the minor is the primary consideration in matter pertaining to the custody of the child. Under the circumstances of that case the custody of the minor child was given neither to the father nor mother but to the maternal-uncle of the child. In our opinion, even though the father may be commanding a commendable status in the society and from all points could maintain the minor child in a better way but that itself is not the primary consideration. In fact welfare of the minor child, including happiness of the minor child are best considerations [see Harichand Ratan chand V/s. Virbala (1974) 15 Gujarat law Report 499]. 7. In USA, there is a social security Act, 1935, amended from time to time making provisions for welfare of minors. In fact welfare of the minor child, including happiness of the minor child are best considerations [see Harichand Ratan chand V/s. Virbala (1974) 15 Gujarat law Report 499]. 7. In USA, there is a social security Act, 1935, amended from time to time making provisions for welfare of minors. Welfare of dependent children was the paramount goal of a. E. D. C. Legislation [see Scing V/s. Smith (1968) 392 U. S.309, 20s Ed.2nd 1118, Heckler V/s. Turner (1985) 470 u. S.184: 84 $ Ed, 2nd 138]. 8. In our opinion, as the welfare of the minor child is the primary consideration in respect of custody of a minor child, the learned Principal judge Family Court was conscious about the cardinal principle. The impugned order directing the appellant to produce the child in Court on 28.9.1995, so that child may be handed over to the mother, the respondent, who shall keep the child with her during Durga Puja Vacation is perfectly correct. ] 9. In view of the premises aforesaid, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed