Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CR No. 7486 of 2013 titled as "Mrs. Daksha Bhardwaj v. Dr. Anmol Sethi and others " (hereinafter referred to as the "first petition") and CR No. 117 of 2014 titled as "Dr. Anmol Sethi and another v. Mrs. Daksha Bhardwaj and another " (hereinafter referred to as the "second petition") being interconnected. The marriage of Dr. Anmol Sethi (hereinafter referred to as the "husband") with Daksha Bhardwaj (hereinafter referred to as the "wife") was performed as per the Hindu Rites at Delhi on 16.02.2010. They were blessed with a baby girl on 28.10.2010 who is named as "Ameera". The husband is MBBS, DMRD (Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis), whereas the wife is a Bachelor in Economics and P.G. Diploma holder from National Institute of Fashion Technology, Delhi and presently working as Vice President, South Asia, in a Multi National Company. Both the husband and wife are living separately w.e.f. 13.03.2013. 2. The husband along with his parents, namely, his father Ashwani Sethi and mother Dr. Sneh Lata, who are aged about 70 years and 69 years respectively, filed a petition in the Family Court at Gurgaon for the custody of his minor child Ameera under the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). He also filed an application for interim custody of the minor child alleging that they have great attachment with the child and the grandparents miss her badly but the wife is not allowing them even to talk to her. Thus, it was prayed that interim custody of the minor be given to them till the disposal of the main petition and appropriate orders be passed to take the minor child to their house to spend at least 3 days in a week and direct the wife to leave the child in their custody in case she goes out of country for her office assignment. The Family Court passed an interim order on 09.09.2013 in the following manner:-- "Respondent appeared and moved an application for grant of permission to be represented by a counsel. Heard. In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. Shri M.K. Dang, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent. Shri D.C. Gupta, Advocate has filed fresh Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioners. Heard. In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. Shri M.K. Dang, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent. Shri D.C. Gupta, Advocate has filed fresh Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioners. There are chances of amicable settlement between the parties. The matter is referred to Medication and Conciliation Center, Gurgaon. The report of Mediation and Conciliation Center is awaited for 01.11.2013, parties are directed to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Center today itself. At this stage, the petitioners have pressed for granting of Visitation Rights to meet the minor daughter. In the interest of justice, the petitioners are granted following visitation rights till further order:-- Petitioners shall have the custody of the minor (Ameera Sethi) every Saturday from 10.00 AM to 07.00 PM. On every Saturday, petitioner No. 1 shall pick up the child from the residence of respondent at 10.00 AM and shall drop the child at 07.00 PM on the same day." 3. On 01.11.2013, an application was filed on behalf of the wife seeking direction to the family of the husband to peacefully avail the visitation rights and not to harass her and the minor Ameera. It was alleged in the application that on 19.10.2013, the husband took the child from the house of the wife at 10.00 AM and the child was dropped back by Shri Ashwani Sethi, father of the husband. It came to the notice of the wife that the husband left for UK on the same day, i.e. 19.10.2013 at about 1.00 PM and his mother Smt. Sneh Lata Sethi was also out of town and the only person available in the family was the 70 years old father of the husband and the minor was very much disturbed, tired and harassed. This application was contested by the husband by filing reply dated 25.11.2013. However, the said application was later on not pressed by the wife and ultimately, the impugned order was passed on 02.12.2013, modifying the earlier order dated 09.09.2013, in the following manner:-- "Petitioners shall have the custody of the minor (Ameera Sethi) every 1st and 3rd Saturday from 10.00 AM to 7.00 PM and on every 2nd and 4th Saturday, the petitioner shall have the custody of the child from 3.00 PM on Saturday to 10.00 AM on coming Sunday. It is made clear that on the night of 2nd and 4th Saturday, the minor shall stay with the petitioners. Any of the petitioners shall pick up the child from the residence of respondent and shall drop the child at the residence of respondent after availing the visitation rights." The application for interim custody of minor child is disposed of accordingly." 4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order by which the Family Court has allowed the minor child to stay in the house of the husband on 2nd and 4th Saturday, the first petition has been filed by the wife. 5. As regards the second petition, the husband filed another application under Section 7 of the Act for seeking custody of the minor during summer and winter vacations and whenever the wife travels abroad or remains out of station. This application has been dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2013 because this application was filed on 11.12.2013, whereas in the first petition, notice of motion was issued by this Court on 06.12.2013 staying the operation of the order dated 02.12.2013, further directing that the petitioner therein, namely, Daksha Bhardwaj (wife) shall continue to comply with the directions earlier issued in the order dated 09.09.2013. It was thus observed by the Family Court in order dated 24.12.2013 that it would not be appropriate to pass an order for handing over custody of the child to her father during her vacations. 6. Before I advert to the respective submissions made by counsel for both the parties, it would be pertinent to mention that in the first petition, this Court had tried to resolve the dispute between the parties and vide order dated 19.05.2014, the husband and wife were called in the Court. It is recorded in the order dated 29.05.2014 that the parties were present in the Court and after interaction with them, the Court found that an amicable settlement was not possible. Accordingly, the case was listed for hearing. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife has argued that the child is a girl, 4 years of age and as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, mother is the natural guardian till she completes 5 years of age. Accordingly, the case was listed for hearing. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife has argued that the child is a girl, 4 years of age and as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, mother is the natural guardian till she completes 5 years of age. It is further submitted that the order dated 09.09.2013 was never challenged by the husband and has been modified by the Court below to the extent that the minor shall stay overnight with the husband on 2nd and 4th Saturday and she could also be picked up by anyone out of the petitioners (husband and his family members) which was earlier only the husband as per order dated 09.09.2013. 8. Counsel for the wife has further argued that no reason has been given by the Court below for modification of the order though the minor has now been admitted in a School at Gurgaon and her overnight stay in the house of the husband would adversely affect her daily routine. 9. Counsel for the wife has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu, 2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 936 : 2008(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 48 : (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 413 and Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed and others, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 696: 2010(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 247 : (2010)2 SCC 654 to contend that that the children are neither mere chattels nor toys and should not be immediately moved from one custody to the another custody. 10. On the other hand, counsel for the husband has argued that although Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 lays down that the custody of a minor upto the age of 5 years would remain with the mother but the Legislature has also used the word "ordinarily" which means that in special circumstances, the custody can be given of such a minor to the father as well. It is also submitted that order dated 09.09.2013 was not a final order which could have been challenged by way of revision as the application for interim custody was disposed of finally on 02.12.2013. It is also submitted that order dated 09.09.2013 was not a final order which could have been challenged by way of revision as the application for interim custody was disposed of finally on 02.12.2013. He further submitted that there was no need on the part of the husband to file an application for modification of the order dated 09.09.2013 because the said order was only an interim arrangement made till the disposal of the application because it was categorically mentioned in that order that the said order has been passed at that stage. 11. Counsel for the husband has also submitted that the wife is working in the Multi National Company and stays away from the child on her foreign sojourns and the child remains in the custody of her maternal grandparents, whereas she can be very well looked after by her father and the paternal grandparents. 12. At this stage, counsel for the husband has also argued against the impugned order passed in the second petition and has submitted that if the impugned order passed in the first petition is allowed to be maintained by this Court, then the husband may be given custody of the minor child during her summer and winter vacations and whenever the wife travels abroad. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following judgments:-- 1. Dr. Ashish Ranjan v. Dr. Anupama Tandon and another, 2011(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 291 : 2010(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 526 : 2011 AIR (SCW) 249; 2. Dr. Vandana Shiva v. Mr. Jayanta Bandhopadhyaya, 1999 AIR (SC) 1149; 3. Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, 2011(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 122 : 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 223 : 2011(6) SCC 479 ; 4. Kumar V. Jahgirdar v. Chethana Ramatheertha, 2004(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 233 : 2004(2) SCC 688 ; and 5. Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla, 2010(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 521 : 2010(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 401 : 2010(4) SCC 409 ." 13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance. 14. At the very outset, I would like to observe that the crux of all the judgments either cited by counsel for the wife or counsel for the husband is only one that in case of custody of minor child, the welfare of the child is of paramount importance and not the rights of the parents under a statute. 15. 14. At the very outset, I would like to observe that the crux of all the judgments either cited by counsel for the wife or counsel for the husband is only one that in case of custody of minor child, the welfare of the child is of paramount importance and not the rights of the parents under a statute. 15. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, unfortunately the marriage did not survive for long as the husband and wife started living separately from 13.03.2013 though they were married on 16.02.2010 only. There is no dispute that the girl child is now 4 years of age and is in the custody of her mother. Both the parties to the lis are financially sound inasmuch as the wife is working as a Vice President in a Multi National Company, whereas the husband is a doctor. 16. In these circumstances, the Court has to see the interest of the minor. Since the question is of the welfare of a minor girl who has just now started going to school, as stated in the Court I do not find any reason to modify the order a dated 09.09.2013 and to hand over the custody of the minor child to her father for (sic) stay at his house because it would create (sic) and add to disturbance in the mind of the minor child with the quick change of environment which would have a substantial effect on her psyche. As a consequence of aforesaid discussion, the first petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.12.2013 challenged in the first petition is set aside and the order dated 09.09.2013 is ordered to be maintained, which otherwise is not challenged by the wife as she is satisfied with the said order. However, the second petition, which depends upon the fate of the first petition, is hereby dismissed. Before parting, the learned Court below, who is in seisin of the lis, is directed to expedite the trial by giving short adjournments and try to complete the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order. This Court also hopes that both the parties would cooperate with the Court below and would not ask for unnecessary adjournments if they really think of the welfare of the minor child.