Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the husband/plaintiff/petitioner herein and is directed against the Order No.22 dated June 8, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah in Matrimonial Suit No.98 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act. The husband filed a matrimonial suit being MAT Suit No.98 of 2009 against the wife/opposite party herein for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 27(1)(b) & (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the wife is contesting the said suit. A daughter was born in the wedlock and the said daughter is now 10 years of age. The husband filed the said application for the custody of the child and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Question is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the said application. Admittedly, the marriage between the two was solemnized on April 27, 2002 and the said marriage was subsequently registered on July 31, 2002. Admittedly a daughter born in the wedlock on March 9, 2003 and that child is now 10 years of age. Admittedly the wife/opposite party herein is residing at her father’s house along with her daughter and the said daughter is now a school going child. The daughter is now reading in the Loreto School, where her mother has been working as a teacher. The custody of the child has been sought for on the grounds that the wife earns small amount from her service whereas the income of the husband is more and that the mother of the husband is willing to see of the child. During the pendency of the matter, some inter locutory orders were passed for visitation of the child by the husband at the house of the wife, but, still then this application has been preferred. Upon hearing the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the main ground of the husband is that, he wants to do the better treatment of the child and his mother wants to see the child. It has transpired that the mother of the husband did not come to see the child in the house of the wife at any point of time. It has transpired that the mother of the husband did not come to see the child in the house of the wife at any point of time. So, this plea, in my view cannot be entertained. This ground has been made to create sympathy only. So far as the custody of the child is concerned, the wife being a teacher of the school where the child is continuing her studies, will be able to give a better treatment to the child. So far as the income of the parties are concerned, admittedly the husband earns Rs.21,307/- per month and the wife, Rs.17,680/- per month. Beside such income of the wife per month, she gets lumpsum D.A. half yearly. So it is not the position that the husband earns twice or thrice of the income of the wife. Moreover, the question is where the child feels comfortable. So, it will be beneficial for the mother to look after the child for her welfare. The learned Trial Judge has recorded the reasons in support of the rejection of the application and he has come to the conclusion that the custody of the child in favour of the mother will be more beneficial than that of the father. Since the learned Trial Judge is dealing with the matter and upon hearing both the sides he has come to such conclusion, I do not think it fit and proper to interfere with the said order. The ground assigned by the learned Trial Judge, in my view is justified. Accordingly, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.