JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Admit. Heard finally. 3. The learned District Judge-1, Shahada on 14.10.2013, recorded order below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application No. 19 of 2012, rejecting the application, moved by Tushar-father of the child-Mukund for custody. 4. The matrimonial relations between Tushar and Smt. Savita and the couple getting the consent divorce in H.M.P. No. 55 of 2007 under Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned C.J.S.D. at Shahada is not in controversy. It is also not in controversy that by virtue of said consent terms, child-Mukund was to remain with Smt. Savita. 5. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for wife Smt. Savita has eloquently pointed out hardship faced by Savita and child. How, according to him, some of the terms in H.M.P. No. 55 of 2007 are against legal spirit, even eclipsing inherent rights of Mukund in such manner. 6. At this stage, this Court is not called upon to determine the genuineness/worth of the consent terms recorded in H.M.P. No. 55 of 2007. A short point is about entitlement of the appellant-father for custody of child. 7. Learned Additional District Judge referred to events subject of H.M.P. No. 55 of 2007, however, treated the same to be a principal of estoppel from claiming custody of the child by the father. These observation certainly calls for interference. There cannot be a estoppel to statute. 8. It was expected of the learned Judge to have dealt with the issues involved. The principle of estoppel is basically oscillating and in matrimonial matter, particularly in relation to custody of child. They are always capable to modification, owing to several factors like age of child, loss of educational facility, unforeseen event with either of parent, loss of income. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vikram Vir Vohra vs. Shalini Bhalla - 2010 AIR (SC) 1675 and particularly para 17. There shall not be any contest on legal issues that in matter relating to custody of child, the issue being sensitive in its character, the custody calls for modification depending on the change situation, circumstances, educational pattern, marriage, re-marriage, divorce, ill health, loss of property. The order in the aforesaid situation calls for interference. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is relegated to the learned District Judge-1, Shahada to decide afresh. 10. The order in the aforesaid situation calls for interference. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is relegated to the learned District Judge-1, Shahada to decide afresh. 10. The learned Judge shall also deal with issue of jurisdiction, as the same was raised by Mr. Patil before this Court. It is informed, pleadings are complete. Consequently, learned Judge shall frame points at the earliest and deal with the matter, after allowing the parties to lead evidence, if any. The parties to appear before the said Court on 5.3.2014 and endeavour by learned District Judge to dispose of the Misc. application by end of April, 2014. No costs. 11. This court has not expressed any opinion of entitlement of Shri Tushar for custody of child.