JUDGMENT Mr. Jaspal Singh, J.: - Unsuccessful petitioner/appellant Jagdish has preferred the instant appeal, feeling dissatisfied against judgment dated 30.03.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Ambala, whereby a petition under Sections 7, 10 and 12 of The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, the Act) seeking custody of his daughter namely Ritu was dismissed. 2. Undeniably, marriage of the appellant/petitioner was solemnized with respondent Smt. Sunita and a female child namely, Ritu was born on May 28, 2000 out of their wed lock, who was about 9 years of age at the time of filing of the petition before the learned trial court and has been residing with the respondent i.e. mother. Some differences arose between the parties. Ultimately, they preferred a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and their marriage was dissolved vide judgment and decree dated December 12, 2002. 3. The statement of Smt. Sunita was recorded in the aforesaid proceedings and at that time, it was specifically stated by her that dispute between the parties have been settled and nothing remains towards the respondent(Appellant/petitioner in the instant case) and even on behalf of the child. But subsequently, appellant/petitioner had preferred a petition seeking custody of the minor child on September 23, 2009 i.e. after about 7 years of dissolution of their marriage. 4. It is pretty settled that while considering the shifting of the custody of the minor child, the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. For determining ‘welfare’ of the child, the questions to be considered are:- (a) Who would have the better care and better consideration for the welfare of the infant? (b) Where is he likely to be more happy? (c) By whom the physical and mental development and comfort of the child can be better looked after? (d) Who has not only the desire but a determination, not only concept but also capacity to provide for a better education and round the clock nursing of the child? (e) Who would be available by the side of the child when the child would need love and affection, the care and counselling, the protection and patting up? 5. (d) Who has not only the desire but a determination, not only concept but also capacity to provide for a better education and round the clock nursing of the child? (e) Who would be available by the side of the child when the child would need love and affection, the care and counselling, the protection and patting up? 5. In case of Vikram Vir Vohra versus Shalini Bhalla, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1456 : 2010(2) Marr.L.J. 64 (SC)] : 2010(2) RCR(civil) 521(SC); it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “Welfare of the child” is of paramount importance in the matters relating to child custody and it was further observed that welfare of the child may have a primacy over statutory provisions. 6. In giving custody of child to a party, the Court is obliged to consider child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. 7. Adverting to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and keeping in view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is to be determined whether the welfare of child lies with the petitioner or he is entitled to the custody of the minor child. In the instant case, undisputedly, minor Ritu was born on May 28, 2000. She was only about 2 ½ years of age when the parties obtained the decree for the dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act on December 12, 2002. 8. It would be appropriate to mention here that when the parties sought divorce by mutual consent, their statements were recorded. The husband who was respondent in the aforesaid proceedings neither reserved his visiting rights to his minor daughter nor he kept open the point of her custody. Rather, petitioner/wife in those proceedings has stated that all the disputes have been settled and nothing remains towards the respondent/husband and even on behalf of the child. On one fine morning, he came up with the petition, seeking custody of the minor daughter on September 23, 2009 i.e. after about seven years of the dissolution of their marriage. There is nothing on the record to suggest as to why he remained tight lipped for such a long period of seven years. Neither, he visited the child whose custody has been sought nor sent any gift on any occasion or otherwise. There is nothing on the record to suggest as to why he remained tight lipped for such a long period of seven years. Neither, he visited the child whose custody has been sought nor sent any gift on any occasion or otherwise. Minor child is being provided education by the respondent herein and even the second husband of the respondent is treating the minor child as his own daughter. Since her birth, minor daughter is in the care and custody of the mother and is being brought up by her. The minor girl is aged about 13-14 years who has not seen her father. Admittedly, the appellant is not in touch with the minor girl since her birth in the year 2000. There is also nothing on record to establish that the minor girl is being neglected and is not being provided the love and affection by the respondent mother. Concededly, a growing up girl needs the company of her mother to meet out her biological requirements. Until or unless, the court is not satisfied with the facts that the future or life of the minor child is at stake in the hands of her present guardian, the custody of the minor should not be disturbed. 9. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merits and further that the impugned judgment is in consonance with the settled principles of law as well as evidence available on record and does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------