JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), whereby, the appellant challenges the impugned order passed by the Court below while considering the propriety of the application filed by the appellant husband invoking Section 7 of the Act, where he has sought the guardianship of a minor daughter, named as Kriti, who was born on 10th November, 2014. 2. It goes beyond doubt and no assertions or clarifications are required, but still, the spirit and purpose of Section 7 of the Act is for providing guardianship of a minor child to either of the spouses, but while the Court exercises its power, the Court has to satisfy itself with a prime consideration, i.e. who would best serve the “welfare of a minor”. 3. Before the Courts, based on the satisfaction as to the genuineness upon a guardianship for a person or property of minor declares a person as to be guardian under the Act, all proceedings invariably is not for the benefit of either of the spouses or to protect the interest of either of the spouses which may have their own vested intention behind it. But the basic purpose is and which the Court has to discharge is to ensure that with whom the best interest of the child is protected and it goes without saying that in the instant case where the minor daughter who was born on 10th November, 2014, who was only about 2 years and 11 months age, would obviously, the best interest of the child would be served by the mother, the most suited to nurture the child, in particular, the girl of this tender age. 4. It is an undisputed case and confining it from the view point of the pleadings of this case, is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 2nd February, 2012. It is the case of the appellant in the proceedings before the Court below that at the time of marriage, he knew that the wife was unmarried but later on it is revealed to him that she had earlier married with one Mr. Yogendra Singh, and the marriage between them was dissolved and she was a divorcee. It is the case of the appellant in the proceedings before the Court below that at the time of marriage, he knew that the wife was unmarried but later on it is revealed to him that she had earlier married with one Mr. Yogendra Singh, and the marriage between them was dissolved and she was a divorcee. The husband submitted further that he learnt that she used to exercise cruelty against her first husband and it initiated frivolous proceedings under Section 498-A and ¾ D.P. Act at Gurgaon. The appellant submitted that after the marriage, they lived at Alwar, Rajasthan but later on the relationship between them became too sour. He submitted that often she used to threaten that she would be roping up the family members in the false criminal cases and, hence, under the pretext of that threat, the husband contended that he left the home at Alwar, sold his property there and settled in Dehradun. 5. It was pleaded by the husband that he has met all the expenses of the birth of the girl child and he expected that after the birth of the child, the attitude of the wife would be refined and the relationship may have a new look towards one another. But the same never mended. The husband further submitted (though irrelevant for the purposes of the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act) that the wife has an illicit relationship with one Mr. Danish Siddiqui and whenever the family members of the husband tried to make her understand, she used to become more aggravated created trouble for all the family members. He submitted that looking to the attitude of the wife, his parents have disowned him from all their movable and immovable property. The allegation of the husband was that on 31st March, 2015, the respondent wife has left the matrimonial home alongwith her daughter Kirti and inspite of all the requests, declined to reside with him, even so much so before leaving, she never gave any information. The husband’s allegation was that on the compliant of the respondent wife, he was called upon by Mahila Helpline on 13th July, 2015, where the wife has threatened the appellant and stated that he should forget his daughter as she is going to sell her. The husband’s allegation was that on the compliant of the respondent wife, he was called upon by Mahila Helpline on 13th July, 2015, where the wife has threatened the appellant and stated that he should forget his daughter as she is going to sell her. For the purpose of filing the application under Section 7 of the Act, he submitted that he has got extreme love and affection for his daughter and the continuance of minor daughter in the guardianship of wife is not beneficial for her future and welfare and security, because any untoward incident may happen which may be detrimental to the interest of the child. He further submitted that the continuance of the minor daughter in the guardianship of a lady of such temperament who is characterless, quarrelsome, unreasonable and has got vagabond way of living, it is not safe for the interest of the daughter. 6. The wife respondent, on her appearance, filed her written statement, paper No. 13-A and denied the plaint allegation and submitted that whatever allegations have been leveled by the husband, are fictitious, false and are the outcome of his own negative thought process and hence, cannot be accepted. She submitted that since at the time when the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act was drawn, the daughter was too small and the appellant would not be the best person to safeguard the interest of the daughter and her interest would be best safeguarded with the wife. She submitted that looking to the age of the daughter and the necessity of nurturing the minor child, the mother would be the best person with whom she could be nurtured and grown and it is only the mother who could only understand the emotional bond and necessity of a minor child. 7. In support of his contention, the plaintiff appellant apart from filing his affidavit in examination-in-chief, as paper No. 32-A, also filed an affidavit of PW2 Yogendra Kumar, the 1st husband of respondent, as paper No. 50-A and the order passed by the Additional District Judge Guargaon on 7th September, 2015, as well as her accounts statement to show her financial viability so as to take care of the child. 8. 8. The Court after taking into consideration the fact that at the time when the case was being considered, the daughter Kriti was of 2 years and 11 months of age only, the Court observed that taking into consideration the impact of Section 6 (a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, has held that though father happens to be a natural guardian and thereafter the mother has been defined as to be the natural guardian but under its proviso, it has been provided that normally the child who has not attained the age of five years, his guardianship should normally be maintained with the mother. The Court held though it is an admitted fact that the appellant happens to be the father and natural guardian of the child but he cannot be entitled for custody of the child till he or she attains the age of five years. The Court while considering the contents of the application, came to the conclusion that on perusal of the relief clause as sought by the appellant in his application under Section 7 of the Act, he has only sought the custody of the child. There is no prayer for guardianship. Hence, in the light of the judgment as considered in the impugned order in the absence of there being relief for guardianship as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act, mere custody of the child and that too who is a minor of less than five years, cannot be granted. 9. Even this Court on perusal of the application filed under Section 7 of the Act, the foundation is that he wants to shower his love and affection to his daughter by giving his time and wants to take care of her. 10. This Court after taking into consideration the facts and the pleadings raised by the husband, himself that he is living alone and he has been disowned by his father, the Court felt that under the garb of Section 7, the relief of Section 25 of the Act cannot be granted and thus, the Court declined the guardianship and granted the visitation rights permitting the appellant to meet the daughter on every 2nd and 4th Sunday from 11 A.M. to 4 P.M.. 11. 11. This Court apparently finds that the impugned order dated 15th July, 2017, do not suffer from any legal error apparent on record because the daughter being so small that guardianship or custody on a permanent basis cannot be granted to the husband, as it would not be in her interest because, being a girl of only three years of age, she required to be fed in short intervals and other various natural calls which are to be attended with, which could best be performed by the mother. 12. But this Court simultaneously has to balance the equity, more particularly, when in the instant case, the relationship is not denied, father has been held to be natural guardian as he has certain emotional attachment with his daughter. We feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the number of days of meeting rights by changing hours of meeting is increased, though no rational can balance the said equity. But this Court directs while modifying the impugned judgment dated 15th July, 2017 to the extent that the meeting rights as granted on 2nd and 4th Sunday is extended for 1st Sunday also, i.e. husband will have meeting right on 1st, 2nd and 4th Sunday. Meaning thereby, the appellant would be entitled to meet the daughter on 1st, 2nd and 4th Sunday for five hours starting from 11:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and thereafter, it would be husband’s liability and responsibility to return back the child to the mother at her residence at the schedule time i.e. 4:00 P.M. Any dereliction in the compliance of the above direction would call for an action both civil and criminal against the appellant. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.