1. Statutory period for presuming service has expired, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, therefore, is proceeded in ex parte. 2. By medium of this appeal, order dated 01.02.2014, passed by the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in an application filed by the appellant under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, is sought to be reversed. 3. The appellant was married to the respondent, from the wedlock, one daughter named Ms. Rehmat was born who is presently eight years old. According to appellant marital relations did not last long, as a result whereof marriage was dissolved on 17th February, 2011, ever since parties have been living separately. The daughter remained in the custody of respondent. Appellant filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking custody of the minor daughter. The said application has been decided by the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar vide detailed order impugned dated 01.02.2014. 4. The learned trial court has discussed all aspect of the case in-keeping with the requirement of safeguarding the interests of the minor. Finally has concluded that the appellant has failed to justify the claim for custody of the minor daughter. 5. While balancing the respective claims/rights of the parties vis-a-vis custody of minor daughter, the welfare of the minor is of paramount importance. Mother, unless has disability, cannot be deprived of the custody of the minor daughter. The appellant before the trial court has not been able to show any disability or to substantiate claim regarding daughter to be in disadvantageous position while in custody of the mother. In absence whereof, natural and uncontrovertable love and affection of the mother towards children has no parallel. Cozy lap of the mother and affectionate attachment cannot be measured by money or any other luxury. 6. Learned counsel would contend that the appellant is a man of substance as compared to the respondent, therefore, appellant could safeguard welfare of the minor in a better way, minor's custody with the mother shall be to her disadvantage. 7. Appellant may be a man of substance, being father nothing prevented him from providing full economic support to the respondent-mother so as to enable her to ensure better welfare and better future, education-wise and society-wise, of the minor. 8. 7. Appellant may be a man of substance, being father nothing prevented him from providing full economic support to the respondent-mother so as to enable her to ensure better welfare and better future, education-wise and society-wise, of the minor. 8. To deprive mother of the custody when there is no disability shall be disadvantageous not only to the mother but to the minor daughter as well. Ruthless dissolution of marriage definitely is to the disadvantage of the offspring. Thereafter to take the minor daughter from the custody of the mother shall be equally ruthless. 9. Rights of the father so as to maintain the affectionate approach with the child cannot be denied. Learned trial court while taking care of the said position has opined that the appellant cannot be deprived of his visitation rights and to have interaction/meetings with the daughter. Visitation rights have been granted to the appellant i.e. female child has been directed to be produced in the office chambers of the 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar fortnightly on Saturday so as to allow her to have interaction and meeting with her father from 1 PM to 2 PM. This arrangement has been directed to remain in force till further orders. The arrangement so made shall be strictly implemented and adhered to. Modification/alteration vis-a-vis venue for meeting of the appellant with the child is left to the discretion of the trial court as and when same is sought by either of the parties. 10. Viewed thus, appeal being without merit is dismissed. 11. Copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information.