JUDGMENT:- Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. 2. The bitterness in father and mother has brought the life of 11 years son to lurch where father has staked his custody by filing a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. 1890 and succeeded. 3. The couple is blessed with three children; Shilpa born in 1993; Shailesh born in 1995 and Suraj born on 66. I 998. The controversy centers to the custody of Suraj, the third child. 4. Before we ponder upon and advert to the rival contentions addressed at Bar by the Counsel, one should not be oblivious to the legal position. The law on the subject is almost settled. The paramount consideration in the matter of custody is only welfare of the child and not the legal rights of the parties. This has been stamped in a latest judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal, ( AIR 2009 SC 557 ). The Hon'ble Lordships have even expressed concern at the present scenario between the spouses by observing that marital discord sometime reaches a stage where the parties arc unmindful of what psychological and physical impact it has on children. In the normal circumstances. naturally guardian is entitled to have custody of the minor child and it is the father. who has a paramount right to have custody of the child. One cannot be oblivious. such right to seek custody of the child will be controlled by virtue of provisions of Section 13(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956. 5. The controversy in the matter is not resting to appointment of guardian, as envisaged under Section 19 and particularly 19B of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1892. The argument advanced on this score need not be further dissected to as the nucleus of the matter is about present custody of Suraj, male child, than appointment of guardian of said child. 6. The husband alleged to infidelity of the wife with Limbraj Sakhare, way back in 2002 onwards, which has the peak effect on the earlier night of Gudipadwa of 2005. It was on this occasion, he having seen his wife with Limbraj, Limbraj was tried to be nabbed, but escaped and consequently parents of wife were called, settled the controversy by taking away the wife and the minor child Suraj with her. It was on this occasion, he having seen his wife with Limbraj, Limbraj was tried to be nabbed, but escaped and consequently parents of wife were called, settled the controversy by taking away the wife and the minor child Suraj with her. This has been refuted by the wife no such incident has taken place, It was the Deewali days in the year 2005, there was bickering between her and husband owing to his drinking habits, which is the ultimate result that she was forced to part his custody. 7. Few facts, which are also of some importance, need to be considered. After the wife departing company of husband, she has initiated civil proceedings through her child Suraj by Civil Suit seeking partition and possession in the property, being RCS No.478! 2006. It is a matter of record, it was only after this suit. that the father woke from his slumber to claim custody of the child in the year 2007 making capital of incident in 2002 or in 2005. No reasons are assigned by the husband as to what was the occasion, not to make any effort to seek custody of Suraj when already he was favoured with two children. Sharad apparently during the span of 2-3 years did not visit the matrimonial home to look after welfare of the child. In between, naturally there were several festivals, had Sharad, as a father, such obligation in his mind to shower love or discharge of his duty to the child, the prime factor, which could have emerged is, his attempt to visit for the child. But, the evidence does not support contention of the husband/Sharad, He showed apathy to his wife including the child. 8. The husband in his evidence says, root cause for filing the application for custody of the child is adultery of his wife with Limbraj. In this scenario of the matter, the moot question, which will have to be answered is, in whose custody interest of the minor child Suraj would be better served 9. The evidence of husband Sharad illustrate that wife Shamal had a happy marital life with him till 2003-2004, However, it was thereafter she had illicit discreet relations with Limbraj Sakhare. The husband could not learn of the same, being an agriculturist and was attending his pursuits by remaining at the field. The evidence of husband Sharad illustrate that wife Shamal had a happy marital life with him till 2003-2004, However, it was thereafter she had illicit discreet relations with Limbraj Sakhare. The husband could not learn of the same, being an agriculturist and was attending his pursuits by remaining at the field. This part of evidence of Sharad, is repelled by evidence of Shilpa, the daughter, when she says that, it was on few occasions entire family was to visit the field; to stay in the field and it was not a regular feature, It is more than clear Sharad had no occasion to interact with Limbraj any time not to venture to have any illicit relations with wife Shama!. In order to come out of this difficulty, the best course available to the husband Sharad was to get eye-witness, who was Navnath, a neighbour and also the fifteen years old daughter Shilpa. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge believed these two witnesses in entirety. The evidence of Navnath should have been scanned in proper perspective. He says he has his house just opposite house of Sharad across the road. If it is so, it should have been so communicated by either Sharad or by Shilpa. On the other hand, it is established that house of this witness Navath is at a distance away from house of Sharad, he could not have paid attention about the so-called visits of Limbraj to the house of Sharad. Even otherwise, Limbraj was a distant relative of the couple, his visits to the house in presences of Sharad, could not have been castigated to be bad venture. It was the sweet desire of the couple that was pivotal in the matter for which Navnath could not have poked his nose. 10. Navnath on 24.6.2008. says it was before five years, he has seen Limbraj Sakhare visiting house of Sharad, which he has communicated to Sharad. If this is so in a village, where the populous is less than 5,000 it would have been a talk of the town and could not have been imposed to be unattended by Sharad. It was a indeed sufficient cause for Sharad to severe the marital tie than to have prolonged the same for perpetuity, to wait for an occasion. This is unheard of. It was a indeed sufficient cause for Sharad to severe the marital tie than to have prolonged the same for perpetuity, to wait for an occasion. This is unheard of. The evidence of Navnath, in the situation, is absolutely a cooked story, with a fertile mind applied by sitting at platform in the village and to spoil somebody's precious life. 11. Then comes evidence of the daughter Shilpa. One would address why a girl, aged 15 years, would depose against her mother and that too brutally to her character. She was fifteen years old having appeared for matriculation. She asserts that when her father used to attend agricultural work, her mother used to phone Limbraj and Limbraj followed. It is accepted position, there is no phone facility with the husband or it is not proved that there was such phone facility with Limbraj. This theory of phoning each other is a false discovery. Shilpa has seen Limbraj visiting her house in day and even at night time. She asserts that whenever Limbraj was visiting her house, her mother asked her to go out of the house. This child of fifteen years is under umbrella of her father. She has been nurtured in such atmosphere that for last three years. she did not feel it imperative or loveable act to call on her mother or brother. If indeed Limbraj, to the knowledge of Sharad, having been communicated by Shilpa, was visiting the house having cemented by Navnath. a villager to repeat, there was absolutely no reason for the husband to continue matrimonial tie from 20022003 and allow the situation to further deteriorate. 12. Sharad was an addict. He was admitted to De-toxican Centre at Latur from 7.11.2003 to 9.12.2003. established by Balaji Yogiraj Kasbe from the hospital. Detoxication treatment was given only to make Sharad a man with ordinary senses. It is not on record whether there could be any positive change or effect of such detoxication center to the pattern behaviour of Sharad. 13. The status of the parties elaborately indicates they are highly placed agriculturists, with reputation at their end. It is the unfortunate drinking habits of Sharad. necessitated him to dispose off his at least 9 acres of agricultural field, even the tractor. 13. The status of the parties elaborately indicates they are highly placed agriculturists, with reputation at their end. It is the unfortunate drinking habits of Sharad. necessitated him to dispose off his at least 9 acres of agricultural field, even the tractor. (which was in the name of his father) It cannot be said, that sale of the agricultural field was the natural phenomena, to discharge the liability of the tractor. The fact remains, without adding any property to the parental status, it was Sharad who was more keen in disposing the property to satisfy his lust. His bad vices and habits were more or less paramountly disturbing the wife and consequently, the bickering and skirmish in the family, In this scenario of the matter. it was in Deewali of 2005, the wife was forced to leave matrimonial home. The evidence of wife coupled with her father Rajaram. weighs more than what Sharad asserts that the wife left on Gudipadwa of 2005. 14. Husband had the bad vices, he has nobody to look after him, it is curious that he is separated from his brother. The two children. i.e. Shilpa and Shailesh, who are with him. are maintained by aunt Ujjwala.1t is in this situation, there is no perpetual relations to said Ujjwala to maintain these two children coupled with the third child Suraj. The incapability of husband to maintain two children akin to the standard of the family to meet their initial childhood requirement, will not further generate to accept that Sharad has capabilities to maintain the third child. 15. Then comes the educational progress of the children. Anita Gaikwad, the School Teacher, in unmistakable terms produced progress record of Suraj and established that there was recurring progress in the education, brilliancy and understanding of the child Suraj. Suraj. according to her, is a brilliant student. He has scored 95.9% marks in 3rd Standard. She has identi lied the pupil Suraj ill the Court. As against this, Shilpa and Shailesh could not gain such educational strata as was expected in the company of the father. They arc average in their studies. They arc wandering in their approach. The shelter of the mother. at such tender age. where apart from education. ways of life are also to be etched on mental screen of ward is more effective in the situation to nourish the child. 16. They arc average in their studies. They arc wandering in their approach. The shelter of the mother. at such tender age. where apart from education. ways of life are also to be etched on mental screen of ward is more effective in the situation to nourish the child. 16. The learned Judge interviewed the child Suraj. he said he was residing with his mother at Varvanti. studying in 4th Standard. He likes village Varvanti as there is better teaching than village Samsapur. The interview of the child Suraj should have been more weighed to the learned Judge when Suraj was without any fetters in his mind. disclosed his likings freely. His likings and welfare having the paramount aspect. custody should not have been obliterated. but the same has been lost sight of. 17. Learned Counsel for the respondent, as stated earlier, stressed that it was the father, who under the law being a guardian. is only entitled to have custody of the child. until he is declared unfit in terms of Section 19-13 of the Guardians and Wards Act. 1890. The question in the case is of the custody, and not appointing guardian. This custody, it is clarified. is lot at all of a permanent nature. It is the childs desire to remain with either father or with mother. The age of the child will also play vital role whenever the child or the circumstances so compelled to make ailernate arrangement about the custody. The matter naturally will not end by termination of such application either way. 18. The learned Counsel for the husband has placed reliance to the Judgment in the malter of Prakash Chandra Jain Vs. Smt. Chandrawati Jain (A.I.R. 1996 Rajasthan 162); Reginald Danical Vs. Sarojam and Ors. (A.I.R. 1996 Madras 365); P. N. Ramchandra Iyer Vs. S. V. Anllapurni Ammal (A.I.R. 1964 Kerala 269); K. S. Mohan Vs. Sandhya Mohan (A.I.R. 1993 Madras 59) and Master Zubeen V s. Principal Judge, Family Court (A.I.R. 1994 Allahabad 147). The slim and substance in all these judgments is the consideration of welfare of minor comes into play only when the other is found unfit, as has been observed in the Judgment in the matter of Reginald Daniel (cited supra). Sandhya Mohan (A.I.R. 1993 Madras 59) and Master Zubeen V s. Principal Judge, Family Court (A.I.R. 1994 Allahabad 147). The slim and substance in all these judgments is the consideration of welfare of minor comes into play only when the other is found unfit, as has been observed in the Judgment in the matter of Reginald Daniel (cited supra). The consideration more tilts to the welfare of the child, as has been observed, whether the application is filed either under Section 17 or Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. 1890 the welfare of the minor could be overriding consideration for the appointment of a guardian. To appeal this is a case of custody of the minor child, there is no situation of appointing the father as guardian of the minor child. The father has obviously rights to act as a guardian of the minor child. It is well settled in the selection of a guardian of a minor, the best interest of the child is the basic consideration, to which even the rights of parents must sometimes yield. 19. In the matter of K. S. Mohan Vs. Sandhya Mohan (cited supra). exceptional circumstances were that the mother/wife was having illicit relations with another man. She deliberately left her matrimonial house. She was not taking proper care of child, she had stated, she was not prepared to keep the child nor was prepared to sacrifice her life for the sake of her children. It was. Therefore, in the situation. clear to the Court that the mother was least interested in welfare of the children and was therefore, unfit to have custody of minor son, who was below 5 years. In that case, other two children (daughters) were with the husband and the court thought it would be in welfare and interest of minor boy, if all the three children were brought up together. 20. To reiterate the facts of the present case. husband resides separately. He is unfit to look after the children. The welfare of the two children residing with him. i.e. Shilpa and Shailesh is already in lurch, as they hecame average in their studies. 21. The learned Counsel representing the wire has placed reliance to the Judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court reported in – A.I.R. 1973 SC 2050; A.I.R, 1982 SC 792; 2008(8) B,C.R. 816. In the matter of Mausami Moitra Gallguli Vs. i.e. Shilpa and Shailesh is already in lurch, as they hecame average in their studies. 21. The learned Counsel representing the wire has placed reliance to the Judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court reported in – A.I.R. 1973 SC 2050; A.I.R, 1982 SC 792; 2008(8) B,C.R. 816. In the matter of Mausami Moitra Gallguli Vs. Jayant Ganguli, where also the custody of the male child, aged 10 years, sought by the wife was the paramount consideration, where the Lordships round that though the wife was highly qualified teacher, but since the was moving place to place and the child desired to have his place at Allahabad, where the father was residing and the father was the contractor. the custody of the child was directed to be given to the father. 22. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above are taken into consideration by the latest judgment in the matter of Gaurav Nagpal Vs, Sumedha Nagpal ( AIR 2009 SC 557 ). Their Lordships found that the father in that case was having a feeling of ousting from the custody of child which would lead to irreparable mental trauma. However, the Lordships found that the interse relations between the husband and wife were irretrievably broken, they were not happy, the behaviour of father was not such to allow to retain the custody of the child, 23. The father, as stated above, is left with 10 acres agricultural field, mostly engaged in the field associated in past with drinking habit was required to take at detoxication center Such person who is alone, even his reputation could not he accepted to look in better ways for welfare of the child and particularly when he himself is a parasite with his brother whose wife Ujjwala is maintaining his two children. As against this. now comes evidence of Rajaram. father of Shamal, the wife. He has four sons, He has very good yield of agricultural income. He is reputed person from the village. He has not allowed his daughter to engage in any other activities. II was in this situation that the wife Shamal is not engaged in any labour work. So long as father Rajaram has capability to maintain his daughter Shamal and equally the son, Suraj, it cannot be said that Suraj is in desperate position or he needs proper shelter, care and welfare from his father. II was in this situation that the wife Shamal is not engaged in any labour work. So long as father Rajaram has capability to maintain his daughter Shamal and equally the son, Suraj, it cannot be said that Suraj is in desperate position or he needs proper shelter, care and welfare from his father. The argument from the Counsel for the wife that the root cause for seeking custody more centers to on going litigation. germinates impression to accept. 24. At the fag end of the submissions, Mr. Deshpande, Counsel for the husband, passionately touched to the dispute between the couple over the property to address that the left over 10 acres of the property, can be alienated in the name of the son provided custody is bestowed to Sharad, I hold, it is for the parties to decide and amicably settle the controversy looking to the betterment of the child and the family. 25. It is observed in Me Grath, RE, (1893)1 Ch 143: 62 LJ Ch 208, Lindley, LL as under: "The dominant matter for the consideration of the Court is the welfare of the child, But the welfare of the child is not to be measured by money only nor merely physical comfort. The word 'welfare' must be taken in its widest sense. The moral or religious welfare of the child must be considered as well as its s physical well-being. Nor can the tie of affection be disregarded." 26. The assessment of evidence indicate that welfare of the child to be paramount aspect will be more looked taken care by the wife than father. The father's contention of unchastity of the wife is a stooge created to sabotage litigation. Consequently, J hold that the allegations of infidelity or illicit relations hurled at the wife with said Limbraj, arc the product of fertile mind of the husband, not associated with any acceptable evidence, On the sole ground the custody of the minor child cannot be restored to the father. ORDER First Appeal moved by the wife/appellant is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Civil Application for Stay does not survive, it is disposed of. Appeal allowed.