Judgment 1. This judgement shall dispose of two appeals being FAO No. 1322 of 2003 and FAO No. 1323 of 2003. 2. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the same appellants against the same respondent Ravi Raj Dudeja. 3. The trial Judge had also decided the two petitions filed by the present appellants and that filed by the present respondent by clubbing them together. 4. The controversy in the present appeals is with regard to the custody and appointment of a guardian of a minor, named Sahil Dudeja, who was born on November 15, 1989 and as such at present is about 16-½ years of age. 5. The facts leading to the controversy show that Ravi Raj Dudeja (father of the minor) was married with Smt. Raman daughter of Ram Nath Anand and Upkar Pushpa Anand (maternal grand parents of the minor - present appellants) on October 19, 1988. A male child Sahil alias Gaurav was born on November 15, 1989 at Faridabad. Ravi Raj Dudeja as well as Smt. Raman were both posted as Lecturers in two different colleges at Yamuna Nagar.Smt. Raman died on September 20, 1993, under some suspicious circumstances. An FIR was lodged against Ravi Raj Dudeja on September 21, 1993. He was accused of causing death of Smt. Raman and was tried under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Ravi Raj Dudeja was arrested on September 21, 1993. On his arrest, the child was brought by his maternal grand parents (present appellants) to Faridabad. 6. Ravi Raj Dudeja was released on bail in January 1994. He immediately filed a petition seeking the custody of the minor. The said petition was filed by him at Yamuna Nagar. Ram Nath Anand, maternal grand father of the minor also filed a criminal complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code at Faridabad claiming mis-appropriation/mis-utilisation of the property of his daughter late Smt. Raman by Ravi Raj Dudeja. Vide an order dated November 10, 1994, Hon ble Supreme Court of India directed Ravi Raj Dudeja not to enter the District Faridabad till the decision of the proceedings under Section 304-B IPC. The aforesaid criminal trial against Ravi Raj Dudeja was finally decided on February 2, 1996 and Ravi Raj Dudeja was held guilty and was also sentenced. 7. Vide an order dated November 10, 1994, Hon ble Supreme Court of India directed Ravi Raj Dudeja not to enter the District Faridabad till the decision of the proceedings under Section 304-B IPC. The aforesaid criminal trial against Ravi Raj Dudeja was finally decided on February 2, 1996 and Ravi Raj Dudeja was held guilty and was also sentenced. 7. The record of the case shows that Ravi Raj Dudeja preferred an appeal before this Court and was ordered to be released on bail on March 1, 1996. 8. The petition seeking custody of the minor filed by Ravi Raj Dudeja was dismissed by the trial Judge at Yamuna Nagar on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. A revision against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by this Court on March 30, 1998. In the meantime, a petition was filed by Ram Nath Anand and Upkar Pushpa Anand, maternal grand parents of the minor, on June 12, 1997, for their appointment as guardian. The said petition was filed before Guardian Court at Faridabad. Ravi Raj Dudeja appeared in the aforesaid petition and also filed his independent petition seeking custody of the minor. 9. The facts which emerge from the record also show that proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against Ravi Raj Dudeja and his mother were dropped and both the aforesaid persons were ordered to be discharged vide order dated May 1, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. 10. Two petitions filed with regard to appointment/custody of the minor Sahil were taken up for consideration jointly by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. The parties led their evidence in the aforesaid two petitions. 11. The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated March 13, 2003 has allowed the petition filed by Ravi Raj Dudeja, whereas, the petition filed by Ram Nath Anand and Upkar Pushpa Anand was dismissed. As a consequence, Ram Nath Anand and Smt. Upkar Pushpa Anand have been directed to hand over the custody of the child to Ravi Raj Dudeja. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is subject matter of challenge in the present two appeals filed by the maternal grand parents of the minor. 12. As a consequence, Ram Nath Anand and Smt. Upkar Pushpa Anand have been directed to hand over the custody of the child to Ravi Raj Dudeja. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is subject matter of challenge in the present two appeals filed by the maternal grand parents of the minor. 12. At the outset, it must be noticed that Shri S. K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for Ravi Raj Dudeja, the father of the child has produced before me a judgement passed by this Court. It has been brought to my specific notice that Ravi Raj Dudeja has been acquitted of the criminal charges under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Before commencement of arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, statement of Sahil (minor), who was present in Court was recorded by the Court. At this stage, it may be relevant to notice the said statement of Sahil Dudeja as follows : "Statement of Sahil Dudeja, aged 16-½ years (date of birth November 15, 1989) My date of birth is November 15, 1989. At present, I am living with my maternal grand father and maternal grand mother at Faridabad. I have been living with my maternal grand parents since the year 1993 i.e. for a period of about 13 years. I am a student of 12th class and I am studying in Modern Vidya Niketan School, Sector 17, Faridabad. I have opted for non medical stream. I am also taking coaching classes for my admission to Engineering. I am preparing for IIT entrance test. In my matriculation examination I had obtained 89% marks. I am considered a brilliant student in my school. Besides my studies, I am also taking part in extra curricular activities. I am being very well looked after (by) my maternal grand parents. My maternal grand parents provide me good facilities for my education and look after my welfare. The present litigation in fact is keeping me under some stress. I do not want to live with my father. As a matter of fact, since I have been brought up by my maternal grand parents since my infant days, therefore, I wish to remain with my maternal grand parents only. I am making this statement without any undue influence from anybody. I do not want to live with my father. As a matter of fact, since I have been brought up by my maternal grand parents since my infant days, therefore, I wish to remain with my maternal grand parents only. I am making this statement without any undue influence from anybody. I understand my own welfare and since I want to join Engineering classes, therefore, I want a stress free life to pursue my career." 14. During the course of arguments on merits, I have heard Shri A. S. Chadha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (maternal grand parents) and Shri S. K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for Ravi Raj Dudeja, respondent-father and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 15. Shri A. S. Chadha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants have vehemently argued that the entire approach of the trial Judge is erroneous and contrary to the settled proposition of law. The learned counsel has argued that the trial Judge had merely taken into consideration the rights of the father as a natural guardian but has completely ignored the welfare and wishes of the minor. According to the learned counsel, the paramount consideration for handing over the custody of the minor is the welfare of the minor and while determining the aforesaid welfare, the natural rights/entitlements of the parties take only a subservient status. 16. On the other hand, Shri S. K. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, father of the minor, has with equal vehemence supported the order of the trial Judge. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the father of the minor, who at one time was under some stigma, having been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, has since been acquitted of the aforesaid criminal charge. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the father being a natural guardian, there was absolutely no justification for the Court to deny the custody of the minor to him. The learned counsel further maintains that the respondent Ravi Raj Dudeja was a qualified teacher and author of many books and as such could always provide not only natural protection to his young son, but also could be helpful in his future career. The learned counsel argues that the welfare of the minor lies with his father. 17. The learned counsel further maintains that the respondent Ravi Raj Dudeja was a qualified teacher and author of many books and as such could always provide not only natural protection to his young son, but also could be helpful in his future career. The learned counsel argues that the welfare of the minor lies with his father. 17. I have duly considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel. I have also taken note of the specific stand adopted by Sahil during the course of his statement made in the Court today. 18. It is no doubt true that the father is a natural guardian of the minor. It is also not in dispute any longer that the father has since been acquitted of the criminal charge faced by him under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, it cannot be disputed that the paramount consideration for determining the right of the custody of a minor is his welfare only. While considering the welfare of the minor, not only the respective rights of the parties claiming such custody are to be considered, but the Court also has to keep in view the attending circumstances. 19. It is not in dispute that on the death of Smt. Raman on September 20, 1993, Ravi Raj Dudeja, her husband, was tried under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, he was convicted by the trial Judge. When Ravi Raj Dudeja was taken into custody on September 21, 1993, Sahil was brought by his maternal grand parents from Yamuna Nagar to Faridabad. Since 1993 Sahil is being brought up by his maternal grand parents. He has grown in the aforesaid environment and is being well looked after. As of today, Sahil is studying in 12th Class. The record of the case also shows, as is clear from his statement made in Court today also, that Sahil is a brilliant student. In his matriculation examination he had secured 89% marks. He is pursuing his studies and has opted for non-medical stream. He is already 16-½ years of age. In these circumstances, Sahil cannot be considered to be a minor child of a tender age, who would not understand his own welfare and who can at times be given in custody against his wishes. A young man of 16-½ years of age naturally understands his own good. He is already 16-½ years of age. In these circumstances, Sahil cannot be considered to be a minor child of a tender age, who would not understand his own welfare and who can at times be given in custody against his wishes. A young man of 16-½ years of age naturally understands his own good. He has already reached almost the age of discretion. The Court cannot adopt any coercive measures forcing a young man of 16-½ years to remain with his father although a natural guardian, against his wishes. Such coercive step would not only play havoc with the psyche of the child but also cause irreparable loss and damage in his academic career. In my considered opinion, the statement of Sahil, made by him in Court deserves to be respected, more so, when nothing has been shown that continuation of Sahil living with his maternal grand parents is going to cause any damage/detriment to Sahil. In any case, Sahil is going to attain majority in other 1-½ years. At this state, the controversy with regard to the custody of the aforesaid minor is almost academic. 20. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the interest of the minor would lie in not disturbing the status quo and his continuous living with his maternal grand parents. It would not be in the interest of minor, at this stage, of his academic career to permit his father Ravi Raj Dudeja to take his custody.Consequently, the present appeals are allowed and the order passed by the trial Judge on March 13, 2003 is set aside. As a result thereof, the petition filed by Ravi Raj Dudeja seeking custody of the minor is dismissed, whereas, the petition filed by Ram Nath Anand and Upkar Pushpa Anand, the present appellants, for appointment of the guardian and custody of minor Sahil is allowed. It is directed that Ram Nath Anand shall act as a guardian of the minor Sahil and shall administer the property of the aforesaid minor during the period of his minority. 21. Before parting with this order, a statement made by Shri A. S. Chadha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants must also be noticed. It is directed that Ram Nath Anand shall act as a guardian of the minor Sahil and shall administer the property of the aforesaid minor during the period of his minority. 21. Before parting with this order, a statement made by Shri A. S. Chadha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants must also be noticed. Shri Chadha has specifically undertaken that in case the appellants are permitted to retain the custody of the minor and appellant No. 1 Ram Nath Anand is permitted to act as his guardian, then the appellants shall not in any manner dispose of the property of the minor under any circumstances. However, Ram Nath Anand shall only look after and manage the affairs of minor Sahil during the period of his minority. 22. In these circumstances, it is made clear that none of the appellants shall be entitled to dispose of the assets/properties of minor Sahil, in any manner during the period of his minority.