JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed on behalf of petitioner Smt. Rasso against the order dated 9.7.2003 vide which the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, sent Kumari Minaxi to Nari Niketan, Kota. It seeks quashing of the said order and the custody of Kumari Minaxi to the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that Smt. Bachcha Bai lodged an FIR No. 205/03 for the offences under sections 366 and 363 with the allegation that Smt. Rasso and Radhey Shyam kidnapped minor girl Kumari Minaxi (who is the daughter of her daughter Smt. Geeta) in her absence from the house. During the investigation of the said case, Kumari Minaxi was recovered from the house of petitioner Smt. Rasso. Both the sides i.e. Smt. Rasso and Smt. Bachcha Bai filed applications for custody of minor girl Kumari Minaxi but the learned court below after hearing the parties, rejected the prayer of both the sides and sent Kumari Minaxi to Nan Niketan. Kota. Until orders with regard to her custody were passed by the competent court in view of the law laid down by this court in the case of Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 RLW 76 . 3. After investigation, police has found the FIR lodged by Smt. Bachcha Bai totally false and concocted as is evident from the case diary produced before me. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP on behalf of the State as well as the learned counsel for N.P. No. 2. 5. It is not in dispute that Kumari Minaxi being less than 16 years of age is a minor. It is also not disputed that she has been recovered from the house of Sint. Rasso, the petitioner. As indicated above, the FIR lodged by Smt. Bachcha Bai has been found to be false. It is also an admitted fact that Kumari Minaxi has stated in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC. that she does not know Smt. Bachcha Bai. She has expressed the desire to live with her grand mother Smt. Rasso. According to Kumari Minaxi, the name of her mother is Radha and that of her father is Shyamu, whereas according to Smt. Bachcha Bai, Kumari Minaxi is the daughter of Geeta who is her daughter. that she does not know Smt. Bachcha Bai. She has expressed the desire to live with her grand mother Smt. Rasso. According to Kumari Minaxi, the name of her mother is Radha and that of her father is Shyamu, whereas according to Smt. Bachcha Bai, Kumari Minaxi is the daughter of Geeta who is her daughter. But, there is no cogent and reliable material on record or evidence in support of this averment. According to Smt. Bachcha Bai, Smt. Geeta the mother of Kumari Minaxi has died. Radhey Shyam who is said to be one of the kidnappers of Kumari Minaxi is her uncle. Even in the FIR lodged by Smt. Bachcha Bai she has not disclosed the relationship of Smt. Rasso and Radhey Shyam with her and has simply stated that the being her relatives usually come to her house. Kumari Minaxi has categorically stated in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she does not want to go to Smt. Bachcha Bai and wants to reside with her grand mother Smt. Rasso were her real brothers Sant Kumar, Sanni and sister Kusum are also residing. 6. In these facts and circumstances of the case, this court has to examine as to whether any interference in the impugned order passed by the court below is called for, justified and warranted. In the case of R.V. Srinath Prasad v. Nandamuri Jaya Krishna & Others, (2001) 4 SCC 71 , their lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court have clearly laid down that the custody of a minor is a sensitive issue involving the emotions of the parties concerned and the court has to strike a balance between such emotions and the welfare of the minor which is a matter of greater importance. It has been further observed that the orders with regard to the custody of the minor, by their very nature, are not final and may be varied and modified from time to time if the paramount interest of the child so requires. It is held that affluence of the party seeking custody or ability to provide a comfortable life, should not cloud the deliberation by the court. It is held that affluence of the party seeking custody or ability to provide a comfortable life, should not cloud the deliberation by the court. It is well established proposition of law which is being followed in almost all the countries of the world that in the matters of appointment of guardian and committing of custody of minor children, their wishes should be taken into consideration if they have attained the age of discretion, though it is equally well established principle that in their welfare the wishes of the children may be disregarded. In India, there is specific provision in this regard. Section 17(3) of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 provides that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the court may consider that preference. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines governing the custody of the minor and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I am of the well considered view that petitioner Smt. Rasso is entitled to the custody f minor Kumari Minaxi because she has herself expressed the desire to aside with her grand mother and the report lodged by Smt. Bachcha Bai haseon found to be false. Kumari Minaxi has categorically stated that she does of know complainant Smt. Bachcha Bai. The mentioning of wrong names of her parents further renders it doubtful that Kumari Minaxi is the daughter of deceased Geeta who is claimed to be the daughter of Smt. Bachcha Bai. Besides this, other two brothers of Kumari Minaxi are also residing with petitioner Smt. Rasso. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed and is, hereby, allowed. The order dated 9/03 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi is, hereby, quashed and it directed that the custody of Kumari Minaxi be handed over to petitioner Smt. Rasso.Petition Allowed - Order of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Sending Girl to Nari Niketan Set Aside. *******