( 1 ) FAO 596/2001 is directed against the order dated 20th September, 2001, of the guardian judge, Delhi. In G 18/2000, whereby the learned Judge has given the custody of the child of the family, Master Manish Kumar, to the mother, Pooja [respondent herein]. ( 2 ) IT is contended by counsel for the appellant that the child of the family, who has been with the father (appellant herein) for nine years now does not recognise his mother and therefore, it would not be proper nor in the welfare of the child to be uprooted at this stage and his custody given to the mother. ( 3 ) IT is contended by counsel for the respondent that the father is facing criminal charges under Sections 506/373/376/342/ 341 IPC in FIR No. 222/1999 registered at police Station Tilak Nagar and is also facing criminal charge under Section 376 IPC in FIR no. 23/1999, registered at Police Station Tilak nagar. It is also contended by counsel for the respondent that the appellant had colluded with Jitender and sold off Pooja to him, who is also facing charges under Section 376 IPC. Counsel further submits that it is not in the interest of the welfare of the child of the family to be living with a man having such antecedents. Even otherwise, the appellant is about 70 years of age while Pooja is only 23 years old. She further submits that the child of the family is being looked after by a married daughter of the appellant which cannot be a substitute for the mother since she herself is bringing up her own children. ( 4 ) IT is rather a sad commentary that a petition of this nature has taken three years to be decided by the High Court, however, that being not the issue, it is appropriate to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible. ( 5 ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the order under challenge, I am of the firm opinion that it is not for the welfare of the child to be brought up by a person whose antecedents are as bad as stated above. However, since he is the father of the child, the visiting right given to him by the order under challenge are not being withdrawn. However, since he is the father of the child, the visiting right given to him by the order under challenge are not being withdrawn. I direct that the child of the family be handed over forthwith to Pooja, respondent herein, in whose custody the child shall remain till further orders of the guardian Court. ( 6 ) THE expression "child of the family" used here shall not mean that the factum of marriage has been admitted between the parties. ( 7 ) IN order to monitor the handing over of child to Pooja, list this case on 25th August, 2004. In the meantime, the child should be handed over to Pooja and the Court be informed accordingly. Trial court record, if any, be sent back. ( 8 ) CUSTODY of the child of the family has been handed over to the mother, Pooja. In this view of the matter no further orders are necessary. FAO 596/2001 is disposed of. CM. 1085/2001 also stands disposed of.