JUDGMENT R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 30th January, 2012 by which the Criminal Appeal preferred by respondent no.1 herein against interim order dated 28th November, 2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'C' Court, Mapusa, granting interim custody of the girl child aged 5 years to the petitioner was allowed. The petitioner is the mother and respondent no.1 is the father of the child. 2. In her application for custody of the daughter, the petitioner alleges that on 25th May, 2011, at around 1.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. The respondent abused her and forced her to leave the house. Consequently, the petitioner had to take refuge with the landlady who lived close-by. At about 4.00 a.m. the respondent forcibly grabbed the child sleeping with the petitioner and left the house on his scooter. It is the case of the petitioner that she waited on that day till 8.00 p.m. in the hope that the respondent would calm down and return home. When he did not do so, she sought help of Mapusa Police Station. Prior to that she had called her mother-in-law at her residence at Tuem but the mother-in-law refused to give any information about the whereabouts of the respondent and the daughter. The petitioner then filed a missing complaint on 26th May, 2011 with Mapusa Police Station. All attempts on the part of the petitioner to get the child back were fruitless and the petitioner was advised to approach the Goa State Commission for help. Only thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Protection Officer in Form I under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking custody of the daughter amongst other reliefs. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa, by the order dated 28th November, 2011 directed the respondent to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner. The respondent did not comply with the order and challenged the same before the Court of Sessions by way of Criminal Appeal No. 146/2011. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal after interviewing the child. The respondent did not comply with the order and challenged the same before the Court of Sessions by way of Criminal Appeal No. 146/2011. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal after interviewing the child. The Sessions Court was of the opinion that the child appears to be very content, and has no reservations about having to live with the father. The Court was also of the opinion that the child was faring well in school. Further, it observed that the financial status of the respondent is not the ground on which application for interim custody should be decided. The finding on the financial status of the respondent was given in view of the allegation that the respondent does not have any fixed source of income and that he is indebted to several persons and banks. The respondent is alleged to have been running away from his creditors and for that purpose has been changing his residence continuously. The relevant observation of the Appellate Court at para 21 of its order are as follows : “21. In the instant case under consideration, I do not find that the appellant herein is disqualified in any manner in continuing with the custody of the child, as I have noted that the child is comfortable and does not seem to be in any way adversely affected by the absence of her mother, I would consider it appropriate that she continues to be in the custody of the appellant herein, with visitation rights to the respondent, on every Saturday and Sunday, from the afternoon till 6.00 p.m. The Ld. Trial Court to decide on the place where the present respondent is to get visitation rights. I am of the opinion, if the child is taken out from the custody of the appellant, it would be traumatic for her, she appearing to be comfortable and well looked after by the appellant.” 4. Mr. D'Souza, the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that the entire approach of the Appellate Court has been incorrect and contrary to settled principles of law. For the child aged 5 years and that too a girl child in particular, the mother would be the natural guardian and as such first preference for granting custody of the child. Mr. D'Souza, the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that the entire approach of the Appellate Court has been incorrect and contrary to settled principles of law. For the child aged 5 years and that too a girl child in particular, the mother would be the natural guardian and as such first preference for granting custody of the child. It is only when the mother is shown to be unfit to have custody of the child then the father would be considered as the second preference for custody of the child. In the instant case, the Appellate Court has not even looked into the aspect whether the petitioner is fit to have custody. It is not disputed that on the date and time mentioned in the application, the respondent had snatched the child in the manner as alleged and gone away. This would mean that the child who was in the custody of the mother had been removed by the father without her consent. 5. Mr. C. Fonseca, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is nothing on record against the father for holding custody of the child. He argues that it would not be appropriate to disturb the child at the interim stage of the proceedings since the child is already attending the school near the residence of the respondent. Mr. Fonseca also points out that the child is being well looked after by the mother of the respondent with whom he is residing since the time he left the petitioner. Merely because there is some support structure available for the respondent, it does not mean that he can get custody of the child in preference to the mother. 6. Another argument advanced on behalf of the respondent is that after he took away the child on 25th May, 2011, the petitioner, instead of coming to the house of the respondent where he is residing with his mother has chosen to go to the police and file complaint against the respondent. The complaint filed by the petitioner was a missing complaint. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the petitioner for approaching the police after the respondent took away the child in the manner alleged. It is to be noted that the petitioner had not immediately rushed to the police. The complaint filed by the petitioner was a missing complaint. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the petitioner for approaching the police after the respondent took away the child in the manner alleged. It is to be noted that the petitioner had not immediately rushed to the police. She had waited almost for the whole day in the hope that the respondent would return home and it is only when he did not return till 8.00 p.m. that she went to police to lodge a missing complaint. 7. The Trial Court had correctly appreciated the question of custody of the child and allowed the interim application of the petitioner granting custody to her. The interference with the order by the Sessions Court was neither justified nor called for. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the child is studying in 1st Standard and her academic year ends on 30th March, 2013. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that today is the last day of the school. He also states that the child has not been going to the school since 5th February, 2013 as she has fractured her leg in an accident. The child thus has been at home since 5th February, 2013. Thus, there is no apprehension of the child missing her school or her academic year. In the circumstances, the revision application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The respondent shall hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner at Mapusa where the petitioner is presently residing with her mother.