JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-petitioner moved the Family Court, Jodhpur, against the respondent- non-petitioner (wife) for the custody of their both the minor sons Rajeev and Rahul, who are with the latter. According to the appellant, the relations between him and his wife are strained and she has gone to her parents house and has refused to return. Both the minor sons are, thus, living with her. The respondent had contested the petition. 2. After hearing both the sides and going through the evidence, led by the parties, the learned lower Court rejected the petition, filed by the appellant-petitioner. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 4. Rajeev was admittedly born on 11.1.82 and Rahul on 11.1.85. The appellant is their father, while the respondent mother. The children are obviously minors and have not acquired sufficient maturity. They have been living with their mother since birth. The entire circumstances which emerged from the evidence of both the sides, when weighed against the care and affection of mother, persuade us to think that it is in the welfare of the children that they may continue to reside with their mother under her care and affection. In the matter of custody of a minor, his interest and welfare are paramount considerations. The proviso to Cl. (a) of Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, provides that ordinarily, a mother must have the custody of child up to five years but there is no provision that thereafter, father must have the custody of the child. The question will be decided on the basis of the welfare of the child. If the Court feels that it is in the welfare of the child that mother should continue to have the custody, there is nothing to prevent the Court to commit custody to the mother. There is nothing in the law which obliges the Court to keep the custody of the child to father just because the child has attained the age of five years. The learned Family Court after considering in detail and minutely the evidence of both the sides, has found that in the interest and welfare of the minor Rajeev and Rahul, the mother respondent should continue to have their custody. We are broadly in agreement with it. 5. The learned Family Court after considering in detail and minutely the evidence of both the sides, has found that in the interest and welfare of the minor Rajeev and Rahul, the mother respondent should continue to have their custody. We are broadly in agreement with it. 5. We do not find any force in the appeal and hence it is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******