Judgement AMITAVA LALA, J. :- This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 16th July, 2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Bijnor in Original Misc. Suit No. 43 of 2003 under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The appeal is heard at the stage of admission on informal papers by the consent of the parties since no other material is necessary for such hearing. In the Court below, an application was made by the grandfather of the child for the purpose of keeping minor child Nitin Kumar aged about 12 years in his custody. Nitin Kumar is son of one Mr. Ashok Kumar, since deceased and Smt. Savita Devi, respondent No. 1 herein. Mr. Ashok Kumar, was an army man and expired in Kargil War. By the death Smt. Savita Devi, mother of the child got compensation of a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs. Out of the said sum, she deposited a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakh in a nationalised Bank in the name of her minor child for his benefit. Out of balance of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, Rs. 9.00 lakhs was deposited in the same nationalised Bank at Feena, District Bijnor in her name. It has been recorded by the Court below that remaining Rs. 11.00 lakhs was forcibly recovered by the plaintiff-appellant from the respondent No. 1, the mother of the child, to construct Pakka house in the village, to contest gram panchayat election and in consumption of alcohol. He physically tortured and misbehaved with the respondent No. 1, the mother of the child. He also wanted to make illicit connection with her. He further wanted to give remarriage to her with his cousin Mr. Raju, who already has two children. She refused to accept the proposal. 2. The minor boy was examined in the open Court and in presence of the parties like a major but no independent and confidential assessment was made by the concerned Judge about wishes of the minor and feasibility. Upon going through the deposition it does not seem that it is an independent deposition but tutored. The boy has stated that presently he is staying with grandfather and grandmother and wants to stay with them. In other place, he stated that he is staying with his uncle and studying in Sena Medium Public School at Delhi. Upon going through the deposition it does not seem that it is an independent deposition but tutored. The boy has stated that presently he is staying with grandfather and grandmother and wants to stay with them. In other place, he stated that he is staying with his uncle and studying in Sena Medium Public School at Delhi. His uncle is resident of Dakshini Puri, Delhi where the grandfather and grandmother are not staying. According to us, if the first statement is considered to be correct then there is no necessity of taking out any proceeding by grandfather to have the custody of the child because he is already custodian. Neither the mother nor the uncle has made any application to take the custody. 3. The Court below, upon considering the pros and cons rejected the application of the grandfather. However, in absence of formal application of the mother the Court construed her as natural guardian of the child. In the appeal we find that the appellant-grandfather wanted to get declaration of guardianship of the minor Nitin Kumar and his property. He prayed for injunction restraining the mother from alienating and transferring the property during the pendency of the dispute before the Court and decree thereof, 4. Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 speaks as follows: "7. Power of the Court to make order as to guardianship - (1) Where the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that an order should be made - (a) appointing a guardian of his person or property, or both, or (b) declaring a person to be such a guardian, the Court may make an order accordingly. (2) An order under this Section shall imply the removal of any guardian who has not been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court. (3) Where a guardian has been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court, an order under this Section appointing or declaring another person to be guardian in his stead shall not be made until the powers of the guardian appointed or declared as aforesaid have caused under the provisions of this Act." 5. Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The plaintiff-appellant relied upon paragraph 17 of AIR 2004 SC 1525 (Kumar V. Jahgirdar v. Chethana Ramatheertha) to establish that the generalisation to give custody in favour of the mother should not have been made. Such reference would be of no help to the appellant since the High Court passed as order therein taking into consideration all other relevant facts and circumstances to come to a conclusion that the female child of growing age needs company of mother compare to father and re-marriage of mother is not disqualification for it. He also relied upon paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of AIR 2006 SC 1343 (Sheilla B. Das v. P. R. Sugasree). We find that the Court has given importance to the intelligency of the little girl of 12 years in choosing custody independently. She said that she has no animosity with mother but she would prefer father with whom she felt more comfortable. She also said that she had established very good relationship with her paternal aunt who was staying in her fathers house and she was able to relate to her aunt in matters which would concern a growing girl during her period of adolescence. Therefore, the Court considered the matter on the complexities of the situation and ultimately held that she will be with the respondent-father but her mother will have sufficient access to visit the minor at frequent intervals. In (2005) 12 SCC 451 (Premchand Jinrajsa Sahuji (Dead) by LRs. v. Surendra) and (2005) 12 SCC 452 (Mamta alias Anju v. Ashok Jagannath Bharuka) the Supreme Court observed that the wishes of the child and assessment the feasible effect, if any, about change of custody after obtaining the opinion of the child psychiatrist or child welfare worker, will be considered. 6. In this case the factual aspect is different. The child is male child. He made two versions in the Court in presence of the contesting parties but not confidentially before the Judge concerned to adjudge his independent wish. Firstly, he said that he wants to stay with his grandfather and grandmother, who are living in the village and at the same time he said that he is residing with his uncle at Delhi for the purpose of studying in Sena Medium Public School, Delhi. Firstly, he said that he wants to stay with his grandfather and grandmother, who are living in the village and at the same time he said that he is residing with his uncle at Delhi for the purpose of studying in Sena Medium Public School, Delhi. Therefore, if the welfare of the child is taken into account, his education and future will also be considered carefully at first. If custody is given to the grandfather or grandmother in a village leaving aside his future and education where he is studying then it will cause danger to the career of the child. According to us, factum of each case is distinct and different. Therefore, factum of each case is to be given utmost importance before coming to any conclusion. Now it has become maxim that family law is no law. When father and/or mother, being natural guardian/s is/are available, it will become delicate situation not to give custody of their child to them or either of them but to others. In this situation the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the natural guardian i.e. mother. If the deposition of the child in the Court below is said to be uninfluenced then we shall be able to find that he is already staying with grandfather and wants to stay with grandfather and grandmother. Had it been so, according to us, the application does not disclose any cause of action because neither the mother nor the uncle, in whose custody, in effect, the minor is staying, claimed any custody. If custody is given to the grandfather and grandmother permanently then there might be an adverse effect in the mind of the child. Livelihood and surroundings of Delhi and of the village in the district of Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh cannot be the same. Above all, if the recordings of this Court below regarding greed of money of the grandfather from the compensatory amount of the money given to the mother is taken into account, the balance of convenience further opposes the contention of the grandfather and/or grandmother. Pracsumptio violenta valet in lege means law values a strong presumption. 7. Above all, if the recordings of this Court below regarding greed of money of the grandfather from the compensatory amount of the money given to the mother is taken into account, the balance of convenience further opposes the contention of the grandfather and/or grandmother. Pracsumptio violenta valet in lege means law values a strong presumption. 7. At the time of delivery of the judgment on the above facts and circumstances, we wanted to examine the child regarding his wishes about the custody once again upon being present and also to satisfy the test whether the Court is rightly coming to the conclusion or not. The Court has already directed the Bench Secretary to inform in advance for such presence, which was, accordingly, done. But no one appeared on behalf of the appellant-grandfather even on repeated calls. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, the mother, contended before this Court that the grandfather cannot produce the child because he is not residing with him but with the uncle at Delhi where he is studying. He also said that there is also no question of production of the child by the mother in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. It appears to us, the custody of the uncle is independent from the grandfather or mother. 8. Therefore, we cannot interfere with the order of rejection passed on the application of the grandfather under Section 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Thus, the appeal cannot be admitted and accordingly, is dismissed without imposing any cost. Appeal dismissed.