ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14th July, 2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2015, by which the learned Family Court has dismissed the said application preferred by the appellant father for obtaining permanent custody of the minor son Rehan and granting visitation right only, the original applicant-appellant herein-father has preferred present First Appeal. 2. That there is a matrimonial dispute between the appellant husband and respondent wife and various proceedings are pending between them. The custody of the minor son namely Rehan is with the mother. The appellant husband is appellant husband is working as an Associated Professor in Pramukh Swami Medical College in Pathology Department and the respondent mother is working as Engineer SD Senior in Institute for Plasma Research situated at Gandhinagar. Thus, both the appellant father and respondent mother are well educated. The appellant husband is paying Rs.10,000 per month towards the ma intenance of the minor son pursuant to the order passed by the competent court. As the custody of the minor child was with the respondent mother, the appellant herein-father submitted an application before the learned Family Court being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2015 for obtaining permanent custody of the minor son Rehan from the opponent and also for declaration declaring that he is guardian and best friend of his minor son Rehan under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. 2.1 It was the case on behalf of the original applicant-husband that he being father, well educated, serving as an Associated Professor in Pathology Department in Pramukh Swami Medical College and financially sound, is entitled to the custody of his minor son. Number of submissions were made with respect to the dispute between the husband and wife. It was the case on behalf of the original applicant-husband that though he is father of the child, he is not permitted to meet the minor just with a view to see that the minor child and the applicant father may not have loving relation. The respondent wife is serving as an Engineer SD Senior in Institute for Plasma Research situated at Gandhinagar. The respondent wife is serving as an Engineer SD Senior in Institute for Plasma Research situated at Gandhinagar. It was further submitted that as the opponent mother is serving woman, she is fully engaged in her service from morning to evening and therefore, it would not be possible for her to take proper care of the minor son. It was further submitted that the brother of the opponent wife is also a Doctor and is also busy in his profession. It was submitted that out of two sisters of the opponent wife, one is a Doctor and another is serving and thus, both of them are busy. It was submitted that the father of the applicant - husband is a retired person and therefore, the applicant and his father both would be in a position to take proper care of the minor. 2.2 The aforesaid application was vehemently opposed by the opponent-mother of the minor child by filing Written Statement at Ex.52 It was submitted that except payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- pursuant to the order passed by the competent court, at no point of time the applicant father has taken care of the minor child. It was the case on behalf of the opponent mother that she is well educated and taking care of the minor child. It was submitted that she has tried to see that best education is given to the minor child. It was submitted that her minor child-Rehan is studying in Mahatma Gandhi International School, which is affiliated with Cambridge University. It was submitted that a great care and caution of the minor child is being taken not only on educational field but also towards Dini Talim at Madresa and also in outdoor activities of minor child such as Karate, Speech Therapy Classes etc. It was submitted that as such the applicant father being Professor in Pathology Department he is required to go and attend emergency at any time. It was submitted that she is taking proper care of the minor child. It was submitted that even the applicant father is not ready to send amount for medical treatment of his minor son. Therefore, it was submitted that the welfare of the minor child is better in the hands of the opponent mother rather than the applicant father. It was submitted that she is taking proper care of the minor child. It was submitted that even the applicant father is not ready to send amount for medical treatment of his minor son. Therefore, it was submitted that the welfare of the minor child is better in the hands of the opponent mother rather than the applicant father. 2.3 To ascertain the wish of the minor child Rehan, the learned Family Court asked certain questions to him and recorded his statement at Ex.91 The minor child Rehan has specifically stated that he does not want to live with his father - appellant and he wants to live with his mother-respondent. He has also categorically stated that he cannot sleep without his mother at night. He even refused to live with his grandparents. 2.4 Thereafter, considering rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and after ascertaining the wish of the minor child, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Family Court has dismissed the application preferred by the applicant-appellant herein-father and refused to give custody of the minor son Rehan to the appellant herein-father. However, the learned Family Court has given visitation right to the appellant father to meet the minor son Rehan on every 2nd and 4th Sunday for two hours from 3 PM to 5 PM at the residence of the respondent mother. 2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court refusing to grant permanent custody of the minor son Rehan to the appellant, the appellant father has preferred present First Appeal. 3. The appellant herein-father has appeared as Party-in-person. He has vehemently submitted that the learned family Court has materially erred in giving permanent custody of the minor son Rehan to him. It is vehemently submitted that while refusing to grant permanent custody of the minor son toe the appellant, the learned family Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the appellant is the father of minor son Rehan and is natural guardian and therefore, he is entitled to permanent custody of the minor as well as is entitled to be declared as natural guardian. 3.1 The appellant - Party-in-person has vehemently submitted that as such the appellant is well educated father and financially better than the respondent wife and therefore, he will be able to take more care of the minor son than the respondent mother. 3.2 The appellant-Party-in-person has vehemently submitted that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the respondent mother is a working woman and for morning to evening she will be busy with her work and therefore, she will not be able to devote more time for the welfare of the minor son. It is submitted that even other family members of the respondent, namely brother and sisters of the respondent mother are also not in a position to devote more time for the welfare of the minor son Rehan, as they are either doctor or serving. It is submitted that even the parents of the respondent mother are also old aged and they would also not be in a position to take proper care of the minor Rehan. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the appellant father is taking care of the minor Rehan as he is paying Rs.10,000/- per month regularly towards the maintenance of the minor son Rehan. It is submitted that therefore, when the appellant is well educated father and financially more sound than the respondent mother, he will be able to take better care of the minor son Rehan and therefore, it will be in the larger interest of the minor Rehan that the permanent custody of the minor Rehan to the appellant father. 3.3 The appellant-Party-in-person has also made a grievance that even visitation right given to the appellant is also not workable and many a times for one reason or other, the respondent mother is not permitting the appellant to meet the minor son Rehan despite the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court granting visitation right to the appellant father. 3.4 Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and grant permanent custody of the minor son Rehan to the appellant father. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. I.H. Saiyed learned advocate appearing with Mr. A.A. Ansari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent mother. 3.4 Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and grant permanent custody of the minor son Rehan to the appellant father. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. I.H. Saiyed learned advocate appearing with Mr. A.A. Ansari, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent mother. 4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent mother that on appreciation of evidence and even recording the statement of minor son Rehan and after ascertaining the wish of the minor son Rehan the learned Family Court has given specific finding that it will be in the larger interest and welfare of the minor son Rehan if the custody of the minor son is continued with the respondent mother. 4.2 It is further submitted that there is a specific finding recorded by the learned Family Court that except payment of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance that too pursuant to the order passed by the competent court, the appellant father at no point of time has taken care of the minor son. It is submitted that as such the respondent mother is taking care of the minor son Rehan on the field of education as well as on other extra curriculum activities. 4.3 It is submitted that as such the respondent being a mother, she will be in a position to take proper care of the minor child than the appellant father. It is submitted that as such it is not the case of the appellant that the respondent mother is not taking care of the minor son Rehan. 4.4 Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court refusing to grant permanent custody of the minor child Rehan to the appellant father. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, which is produced by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the dispute is with respect to permanent custody of the minor child Rehan. In the present case, both, the appellant father and respondent mother are well educated and financially sound. 5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the dispute is with respect to permanent custody of the minor child Rehan. In the present case, both, the appellant father and respondent mother are well educated and financially sound. The appellant father is serving as an Associated Professor in Pramukh Swami Medical College in Pathology Department and respondent mother is serving Engineer SD Senior in Institute for Plasma Research situated at Gandhinagar. There is a matrimonial between the parties and other proceedings are going on before the appropriate court. The custody of the minor child is with the mother and from the evidence on record and even from the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, it appears that the respondent mother is taking care of the minor child and she is looking after the education of the minor child as well as other extra curriculum activities. The minor child is studying in well reputed school named Mahatma Gandhi International School, which is affiliated with Cambridge University. The mother is also taking extra care for outdoor activities of the minor child such as Karate, Speech Therapy Classes etc. Except payment of Rs.10,000/- per month and that too pursuant to the order passed by the competent court, no further amount is spent by the appellant father towards the welfare of the minor. That after ascertaining the wish of the minor child Rehan and recording the statement of minor son Rehan at Ex.91, the learned Family Court has refused to give custody of the minor son Rehan to the appellant father, by observing that it will be in the welfare and in the interest of the minor to continue the custody of the minor son Rehan with the respondent mother. In paragraph nos. 29, 30 and 31, the learned Family Court has observed as under:- “29. As stated hereinabove, this Court has also asked certain questions to minor child Rehan and has recorded his statement at Exh.91 It is clear from the statement of minor child that he does not know name of his father; he also declined to live with his father; he wants to live with his mother and that he cannot sleep without his mother in the night and he even does not sleep with his Nana-Nani (parents of opponent) and he even refused to live with his grandparents (applicant's parents). This court has specifically asked to minor child Rehan that his father is a big doctor and he has luxurious bungalow and car and his father would give so many toys, if he would go to live with his father. The minor child bluntly refused to live with applicant father and stated that he has so many toys to the extent of three bags and now he would give many toys to other children and he has shown his unwillingness to go to live with the applicant. So far as mother is concerned, he stated that his mother is very good; his mother loves him and also keeps him very well and he cannot live without his mother. The child has also stated that he knows Karate, he would kick the police and would run away to his mother's residence, if he would be sent to his father's house with police. All questions are asked in Hindi and answers are also given in Hindi, but the same are noted in Gujarati. 30. It is clear from the statement of minor child that child is very much firmed to live with the opponent mother even if his father is a big doctor having luxurious bungalow and car. This court has also tempted and induced the minor child that his father is able to give more facilities to him in terms of toys, bungalow and car, but the child is reluctant to live with applicant father and preferred to live with opponent mother. This court has also asked to minor child that if he would be sent to his father's house with the help of police, what would be his reactions, however, the child adhered to live with his mother. It is also clear that child is very happy with opponent mother. 31. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, it is clear that the applicant has miserably failed to prove that welfare of the minor child is not with the opponent, but it is with the applicant. It is also clear that child is very happy with opponent mother. 31. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, it is clear that the applicant has miserably failed to prove that welfare of the minor child is not with the opponent, but it is with the applicant. The applicant has also failed to prove that custody of minor child is required to be given to him in the interest and paramount welfare of minor child.” 5.2 Thus, there is a specific and clear finding recorded by the learned Family Court it will be in the paramount interest of the child to continue custody of the minor son Rehan with the respondent mother. It is the case on behalf of the appellant father that he is well educated and financially more sound than the respondent mother and that the respondent mother is working woman and she will not be in a position to spare time for the welfare of the minor child. So far as the case of the appellant father to give him permanent custody of the minor to him is concerned, it is required to be noted that both, the appellant father and respondent mother are working. The appellant is serving as an Associated Professor in Pramukh Swami Medical College in Pathology Department and respondent mother is serving as an Engineer SD Senior in Institute for Plasma Research situated at Gandhinagar. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the appellant husband that the respondent mother is working woman-mother, and therefore, she will not be in a position to spare time for the welfare of the minor child is concerned, the same has no substance and even the same could be applicable to the appellant also. In any case, on appreciation of evidence it has come on record that despite the fact that the respondent mother is serving as an Engineer SD Senior in Institute for Plasma Research situated at Gandhinagar she is taking care of the minor child. Merely because the respondent mother is serving, it cannot be assumed and/or presumed that she is not able to take care of the minor child. In these days, so many mothers are working and still they are taking care of the children. Merely because the respondent mother is serving, it cannot be assumed and/or presumed that she is not able to take care of the minor child. In these days, so many mothers are working and still they are taking care of the children. Therefore, merely because the respondent mother is working it cannot be presumed and/or presumed that she will not be in a position to take proper care of the minor child. If the aforesaid is considered, in that case when every father is serving it can be argued that as father is serving he will not be in a position to take proper care of the minor child. Under the circumstances, the submission on behalf of the appellant father that the respondent mother is serving and therefore, she will not be in a position to take proper care of the minor, has no substance. 5.3 In the present case, both, the appellant father and respondent mother are well educated and serving. On appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that even the minor child is studying in a very reputed educational institute namely Mahatma Gandhi International School affiliated with Cambridge University and even the respondent mother is taking extra care in other outdoor activities also. Under the circumstances, when on appreciation of evidence the learned Family Court has specifically observed that paramount interest of the minor child would be to continue the custody of the child with the mother and thereafter when the learned Family Court has refused to grant permanent custody of the minor son Rehan to the appellant herein, it cannot be said that the learned Family Court has committed any error which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. It cannot be disputed that while considering the issue of custody of the minor child the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor children which in the present case would be to continue the custody of the minor with the respondent mother. 5.4 We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 5.5 Now, so far as the grievance made by the appellant father that the visitation right given to the appellant father pursuant to the impugned order is not workable and/or many a times he is not permitted to meet the minor Rehan, is concerned, for that appropriate remedy would be before appropriate court/forum. 5.5 Now, so far as the grievance made by the appellant father that the visitation right given to the appellant father pursuant to the impugned order is not workable and/or many a times he is not permitted to meet the minor Rehan, is concerned, for that appropriate remedy would be before appropriate court/forum. Even otherwise, visitation rights always would be subject to convenience of otherwise, in the present case convenience of the respondent wife and minor son. It may happen that in a given case the child on the holiday may be busy with other activities and/or work and in such an eventuality, the respondent wife might not be in a position to see that the appellant father meets Rehan. That depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and ultimately welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration. On the aforesaid ground the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court refusing to grant permanent custody of the minor son to the appellant father cannot be set aside. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present appeal which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 7. In view of dismissal of the main First Appeal, Civil Application No. 8473 of 2016 deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.