ORDER :- This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order dated 14th August, 2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th First (Fast) Track Court (Incharge), Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, in Miscellaneous Case No. 121 of 2006, whereby an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, was disposed of. 2. The petitioner herein is the father of twin male children who are presently in the custody and home of their maternal grandparents at Ranchi. 3. The instant application was filed before this Court on 11th September, 2007. Consequently, the petitioner took out an application, being C.A.N. No. 1005 of 2008, which was initially moved during the last puja vacation with A.S.T.A. No. 1300 of 2007. By an order dated 5th November, 2007, the learned vacation Judge inter alia appointed Miss. Sumita Shaw a learned Advocate of this Court as a Special Officer to accompany the petitioner to Ranchi in order to enable him to visit his twin children at their maternal grandparents' home on November 7 and 8, 2007. The reasons for appointing Special Officer were recorded in detail in the order dated 5th November, 2007. 4. Thereafter, the instant matter appeared before Her Ladyship, the Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee on 18th December, 2007. Indira Banerjee, J., was pleased to give direction for filing affidavits on that day and directed the matter to appear as "contested application" on 22nd January, 2008 and further observed that if in the meanwhile the petitioner went to Ranchi, the opposite party was to allow the petitioner to visit the children and spend 2/3 hours with them. Subsequently, C.O. No. 3361 of 2007 came up before this Bench on 27th February, 2008. On that day, upon perusing the report of the Special Officer, this Court found that notwithstanding the order dated 5th September, 2007 appointing a learned Advocate as a Special Officer, no steps were taken by any of the parties to the instant proceeding, to act in terms of the said order. Considering the circumstances, this Court discharged the Special Officer and directed the matter to be placed for further consideration at a subsequent date. 5. Considering the circumstances, this Court discharged the Special Officer and directed the matter to be placed for further consideration at a subsequent date. 5. On perusing the order impugned, being order dated 14th August, 2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th First (Fast) Track Court (Incharge), Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, it appears that the learned Court below was considering an application for interim custody of the twin children, claimed by the petitioner, being their father and natural guardian. 6. The facts of the case, carved out from the order impugned, are as follows :- A marriage between Sajjan Sharma (being the petitioner herein), and Ambika Sharma (since deceased) was solemnized on 17-4-2003. Within their wedlock, twin male children, Vivek Sharma and Anant Sharma, were born on 11-8-2004. After their marriage the couple started residing at Dum Dum Road, Kolkata, within the jurisdiction of the Court wherefrom the impugned order emanates. Sometime in May, 2006, Sajjan Sharma went to Moscow (Russia) with his father and his wife Ambika, along with their twin children. On 25th July, 2006, at around 18.40 pm (Moscow time), Ambika fell down from tenth floor of their apartment in Moscow (Russia) and after one hour she was declared dead by a Moscow Hospital. On 27th July, 2006, Sajjan Sharma informed his in-laws about the incident and requested them to reach Moscow (Russia) at the earliest. After the completion of post-mortem examination at Moscow, the dead body of Ambika was brought to Calcutta from Moscow (Russia) on 2nd August, 2006. Her body was accompanied by her husband Sajjan Sharma and his father Mohan Lal Sharma and the twin children of Sajjan and Ambika. Immediately after arriving at Dum Dum Airport on 2nd August, 2006 the airport police arrested Sajjan Sharma and his father Mohan Lal Sharma on the basis of a written complaint lodged by Dindayal Sharma, being the opposite party herein, who also happens to be the father of the deceased Ambika. On the basis of the F.I.R., a criminal case was registered against Sajjan Sharma and his father Mohan Lal Sharma and their near relations under Sections 498A/304B/34 I.P.C. and investigation is continuing. Although not specifically stated in the order impugned, it appears that the custody of the twins changed hands at the airport itself and the maternal grandparents have since been holding their custody. 7. Although not specifically stated in the order impugned, it appears that the custody of the twins changed hands at the airport itself and the maternal grandparents have since been holding their custody. 7. It appears that the learned Court below considered several factors while deciding Sajjan Sharma's application and was ultimately of the opinion that the custody of the twin children should be retained by their maternal grandparents. However, Sajjan Sharma, being the father and natural guardian of the twin children, was permitted by the learned Judge to meet his children on holidays, festive seasons or on any other day, with prior notice to the maternal grandparents. Sajjan Sharma was however not permitted to take the children from the custody of the maternal grandparents or to leave the jurisdiction of the country without leave of Court, on any pretext. The learned Judge also observed in the order impugned that if in due course the petitioner won over the love and affection of his children, he would be at liberty to move Court for modification of the order impugned regarding their custody. The learned Judge also gave liberty to the parties to move Court for modification of the order or for seeking any direction regarding the custody and well-being of the children, taking into consideration their paramount welfare. 8. At the time of hearing, on behalf of the parties, several judgments have been cited to buttress their respective stands. 9. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Pravat Kumar Saha v. Dilip Pramanick reported in AIR 1997 Cal 326 . Relying on this judgment, the learned Advocate submits that the minor twins' maternal grandparents could not be appointed as their guardian since their father had not been convicted on a criminal charge and there was no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be said that the conduct of the father was not conducive for the welfare of his minor children. The other judgment relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is in the case of Nilratan Kundu and Anr. v. Sri Abhijit Kundu reported in 2008 (1) CLJ (Cal) 172 : (AIR 2008 NOC 1055). The other judgment relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is in the case of Nilratan Kundu and Anr. v. Sri Abhijit Kundu reported in 2008 (1) CLJ (Cal) 172 : (AIR 2008 NOC 1055). Relying on this judgment, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the facts of the instant case also, the Court could pass similar directions to hand over the twin children to the custody of the father and natural guardian, i.e., Sajjan Sharma. 10. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, i.e., maternal grandfather, referred to and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi v. Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi reported in AIR 1992 SC 1447 . Relying on this judgment, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits, that it would not be in the interest and welfare of the children to hand over their custody to their father Sajjan Sharma, being their natural guardian, and the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity of reasoning or error of law, which would warrant interference of this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that this Court in the case of Tarun Ranjan Majumdar and Anr. v. Siddhartha Datta reported in AIR 1991 Cal 76 had observed that it is settled beyond doubt that in matters relating to custody of child, it is not the legal right of the claimant which is decisive, but it is the welfare of the child which is the primary and paramount test and no one can recover custody of child merely by brandishing his legal right or financial affluence. 11. After going through the respective contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the various judgments referred to and relied upon, I am of the view that in matters such as this, there cannot be any straight-jacket formula that can be made applicable, save and except, paramount welfare of the child. Whether a criminal case against a natural guardian is pending or whether custody of a child is with the natural guardian or with someone else, in my view, is of little or no consequence. Each such scenario is to be considered on the touchstone of the child's paramount welfare. Whether a criminal case against a natural guardian is pending or whether custody of a child is with the natural guardian or with someone else, in my view, is of little or no consequence. Each such scenario is to be considered on the touchstone of the child's paramount welfare. It is not as if a father or a mother, being a natural guardian, can claim custody of a child, as a matter of course or as a rule of thumb. If the Court is called upon to decide whether such natural guardian can be given custody of a child, the sole consideration to be weighed by it ought to be what could be the paramount welfare of the child, and nothing else. However, in order to do so, the Court takes into consideration several factors. In my opinion, such factors include the child's immediate environment and surroundings, the emotional security provided by those nearby, happiness and contentment that a child gets from such persons, environment and surroundings, all of which would be conducive for the child to thrive and grow and become a good human being. Whether this is achieved in a foster home or in the house of a natural guardian, in my view, bears no consequence. Keeping all these aspects in mind and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I propose to pass this following order :- (a) Mrs. Ipsita Banerjee, learned Advocate, Bar Library Club, 2nd floor High Court, Calcutta and Ms. Rituparna De, learned Advocate, having her chamber at 12/2, Old Post Office Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata- 700 001, are appointed as Special Officers. The Special Officers are directed to go to Ranchi and meet the twin children at their maternal grandparents' house and evaluate their state of welfare. While doing so they will take note of all the factors, which have been observed hereinbefore, in the earlier part of this order; (b) Immediately after their return and upon their giving due intimation, the twin children may be brought to Calcutta by the opposite party and/or his wife so as to enable the Special Officers to facilitate a meeting of the petitioner with his children at a place and time which is to be decided finally by the Special Officers. Each of the Special Officers shall separately arrange for such meeting. Each of the Special Officers shall separately arrange for such meeting. If required, the Special Officers may permit the father to meet his twin children more than once. However, this will be purely within the realms of discretion of the Special Officers; (c) The Special Officers may thereafter allow the children to be taken back to Ranchi and consequently file comprehensive reports before this Court, based on their evaluation, severally; (d) While giving directions for bringing the children from Ranchi to Calcutta the Special Officers should direct the maternal grandparents to take due care, so as to ensure that the children are not put to any sort of mental trauma or difficulty on account of their travelling to a place outside Ranchi; (e) The Special Officers may complete the entire exercise within a period of four months from date and file their reports before this Court on or before 10th November, 2008. The Special Officers shall be entitled to an initial remuneration of 600 GMs each which shall be payable by the petitioner at the first instance. The travel arrangement and their stay at Ranchi shall be arranged by the parties jointly through their respective learned Advocates on record. 12. Let this matter appear on 10th November, 2008 under the heading "contested application" for further consideration. 13. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as early as possible. Later 14. After the order is pronounced in Court, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, prays for stay of operation of this order. Such prayer is considered and refused. Order accordingly.