JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite due notice from this Court, the respondent Smt. Bandana Goswami (Bhattacharjee) did neither enter in appearance or ensure her representation through a counsel duly instructed. 2. By this appeal filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the judgment and order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Civil Misc. (GC) No. 18/2013 has been challenged. 3. The appellant herein had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Sections 6 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and further read with Section 151 of the CPC for custody of the minor son of the appellant and the respondent namely, Nabarup Bhattacharjee who was admittedly born on 03.03.2001. As adverted in the petition, the guardianship certificate has been sought in respect of the person of the minor and no property was the subject matter of the said petition. Here it is to be noted that at the relevant point of time the minor used to reside with the respondent but later on the minor started living with his father and even the same fact is reflected in the said judgment dated 25.07.2014. 4. The Addl. District Judge in his judgment dated 25.07.2014 has reproduced the statement made by the minor in that Court, which reads as under: “At present I have been staying with my mother at Dharmanagar, Jail road in the house of my Grand parents (parents of my mother). My father is living separately from me. I do not know where my father actually resides. My father used to visit me once after interval of 2/3 months. At present my grandfather used to bear all my expenditure of my education. Previously my mother was an employee being teacher of a private school (missionary school), at present my mother relinquished the job and doing some private tuition. I know that my father filed the instant before this court to take me for my better education. I do not consider that I shall get good care and protection for my education in the house of my father. I am also disinclined to go to any boarding house living separate from my father for my better education. I know that my father filed the instant before this court to take me for my better education. I do not consider that I shall get good care and protection for my education in the house of my father. I am also disinclined to go to any boarding house living separate from my father for my better education. My BBI School is a very good school and I believe that for better result I need not go to good school. My present environment is good enough for me and my better result. I want to live with my mother. I have witnessed that my father used to torture my mother previously so as such I am always afraid of my father. At present I have got no objection if my parents regularly meet with me in my school. I have no objection if my father wants to keep some amount in a joint account of myself and my father.” 5. On the basis of the said statement, the custody was denied. During the pendency of the appeal, as Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, by way of amicable settlement the minor was allowed to reside with the appellant and the minor is still residing with the appellant. 6. To verify this circumstance, this Court asked the appellant to produce the minor before this Court. This Court has interacted with the minor and the minor has admitted that he is living with his father. He is very happy with his father and he does not want to live with his mother any more but he has not said anything adverse against his mother. He has also stated that his mother is regularly meeting him and he is also going to the place where his mother is now residing and there is no attrition. 7. Be that as it may, the respondent did not appear before this Court to claim the custody. Even she did not engage any counsel, as noted. From the records, it transpires that over the issue of custody of the minor there was some attrition earlier. Later on, the appellant and the respondent by way of a decree of divorce are released from their marital obligation and they are living separately. Even she did not engage any counsel, as noted. From the records, it transpires that over the issue of custody of the minor there was some attrition earlier. Later on, the appellant and the respondent by way of a decree of divorce are released from their marital obligation and they are living separately. Since the minor son is now happily living with this father, this Court would not like to affirm the judgment dated 25.07.2014 whereby the custody to the appellant, as the father of the minor, was refused on consideration of welfare of the minor son. Now the minor son is more than 16 years of age and he is quite mature and he has expressed his maturity while this Court was interacting with him. Since he is not finding any difficulty, rather he appears contended with happiness, the custody of the minor can continue with the appellant. Having observed thus, the judgment and order dated 25.07.2014 is interfered with and quashed. 8. It is to be noted that according to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 the natural guardian in case of a minor boy, who has completed the age of five years, shall be his father. Since, the respondent, mother of the minor, has preferred not to contest the claim, this Court places the custody of the minor with the appellant till the minor attains majority. 9. It is to be stated very clearly that custody of the minor is not governed by the rights of the parents but on paramount consideration of his welfare. Since the minor, as concerned in this case, is quite grown up and he has expressed his happiness in the care and custody of his father, no further inquiry is required. 10. Having observed thus, this appeal stands allowed. The impugned order is set aside and quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. A copy of this order be sent by the appellant to the respondent.