JUDGMENT & ORDER : ARINDAM LODH, J. 1. This is a very unfortunate case where this Court is to deal with the question of the custody of a minor girl, Miss Pushpita, who claims to be comfortable with her maternal grandfather (whose said status also is in dispute) than her own parents. The custody of a minor girl, Miss Pushpita is in question, and prolonged fight leading to criminal prosecution as well as civil litigation has been a regular feature. The ongoing fight between the biological parents of Miss Pushpita Das and her maternal grandparents (as they claimed) started in the year 2011. There were cases and counter cases between the parties, even criminal cases were filed, and ultimately, the maternal grandfather approached the Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala for appointing him as guardian of Miss Pushpita Das under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which was seriously countered and contested by the biological parents of Miss Pushpita Das. 2. The background facts of the case in a nut-shell are as follows:- 3. The biological parents of Miss Pushpita Das, Sri Apu Das and Smt. Papri Das (Malakar) entered into wedlock in the year 2000 and out of that wedlock twin daughters were born on 25.09.2003, Miss Pushpita Das is the elder one. After marriage of Sri Apu Das and Smt. Papri Das (Malakar), they started to lead their conjugal life in the house of the petitioner-appellant Sri Dilip Malakar who claims to be the father of Smt. Papri Das and grandfather of Miss Pushpita Das. Sri Dilip Malakar and his wife Smt. Mira Malakar are not the biological parents of Smt. Papri Das (Malakar) but it is the admitted position that she was brought up by them. It is her further case that she was married to Sri Apu Das on her own choice and volition and initially Sri Dilip Malakar and Smt. Mira Malakar could not accept their marriage, but ultimately with the interference of well-wishers they accepted the said marriage. It is her further case that she was married to Sri Apu Das on her own choice and volition and initially Sri Dilip Malakar and Smt. Mira Malakar could not accept their marriage, but ultimately with the interference of well-wishers they accepted the said marriage. However, Sri Dilip Malakar, the appellant herein and his wife, Smt. Mira Malakar, who happen to be the parents of Smt. Papri Das used to provoke her to lodge false allegations due to want of money and on their pressure she lodged a criminal case against her husband, Sri Apu Das which she withdrew after being understood that she had committed a mistake and good sense prevailed over her. 4. She has alleged that the two younger brothers of Dilip Malakar wanted to develop illicit relation with her on the pretext that she was not the real biological child of Dilip Malakar and Mira Malakar but was their adopted child. It is her contention that the environment of the house of Dilip Malakar is not conducive to lead a dignified life for any woman. 5. It is her further contention that by the passage of time and due to the changed scenario, she became united with her husband and decided to lodge a criminal case for recovery of her children from the custody of Dilip Malakar and Mira Malakar. 6. It is to be mentioned here that afterwards, one male child namely, Ayush Das was born to Sri Apu Das and Smt. Papri Das and altogether they were blessed three children. When they became united, with the help of police and as per the order of the court in CR(Misc)18/2011, the police recovered their daughter Poushali and son Ayush from the custody of Dilip Malakar and Mira Malakar and handed over to them. Though it was agreed that Miss Pushpita would also be handed over to her natural parents, but Dilip Malakar did not hand over Miss Pushpita to her parents. 7. During the pendency of the case before the Family Judge, being Civil Misc.(GC)22/2011 for appointing Dilip Malakar as the guardian, the petitioner-appellant filed an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for getting an interlocutory order in regard to the custody of his granddaughter Miss Pushpita, the minor. 7. During the pendency of the case before the Family Judge, being Civil Misc.(GC)22/2011 for appointing Dilip Malakar as the guardian, the petitioner-appellant filed an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for getting an interlocutory order in regard to the custody of his granddaughter Miss Pushpita, the minor. The Family Judge by his order dated 04.07.2011 has allowed the interim custody in favour of Sri Dilip Malakar till disposal of the original case. Sri Dilip Malakar was allowed to collect the transfer certificate of Miss Pushpita from her school, i.e. Army School, Agartala for getting her admitted to any other school. The said application for appointment of guardian was finally disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2014 wherein the Family Judge, West Tripura, Agartala has thought it fit to reject the prayer of the petitioner-appellant Dilip Malakar to appoint him as the guardian on the ground that the facts and circumstances of the case did not satisfy the requirement of Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 with a further consideration that Miss Pushpita was infant. 8. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order dated 16.08.2014 Sri Dilip Malakar, the petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the learned Family court, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Civil Misc.(GC)22 of 2011. 9. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mrs. S Deb (Gupta), learned counsel submits that Pushpita is not safe with her natural guardians who are admittedly her biological parents but she is quite safe and comfortable to stay with her maternal grandparents as she was brought up by them. She further submits that the maternal grandparents always think of the welfare of the minor, Miss Pushpita and they are trying their best to continue her studies and to lead a dignified life. 10. On the contrary, Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has strenuously argued that Miss Pushpita is not at all safe with her maternal grandparents. The environment in the house of the maternal grandparents is not suitable for proper grooming up of a child. Miss Pushpita is a grown up girl and she was provoked by the petitioner-appellants to lead a bohemian life. The environment in the house of the maternal grandparents is not suitable for proper grooming up of a child. Miss Pushpita is a grown up girl and she was provoked by the petitioner-appellants to lead a bohemian life. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, since Miss Pushpita Das is passing through the teenage stage, it is very difficult to decide about what is good and what is bad for his/her and it is ripe time to properly control and guide her. 11. As informed to this Court, the maternal grandfather, the appellant herein has retired as a security guard from the ONGC in December, 2013 and is aged above 65 years and the maternal grandmother is aged above 50 years and there is no other source of family income except the retiral benefits. The appellant is dependent on his pension which is Rs.12,000/- per month. 12. This court vide order dated 24.04.2018 has discontinued the interim order passed by the learned Judge, Family court and the order dated 03.09.2014 stood vacated. It was expected by this Court that the appellant would hand over the custody of the minor child Miss Pushpita Das to her natural guardians, respondents herein, who shall stay with them till final disposal of the present appeal. 13. In pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2018, the custody of the minor child Miss Pushpita Das was handed over to the respondents-parents but suddenly she was found missing and on the basis of a complaint lodged with the police she was recovered and the learned Addl. CJM has recorded the statement of Miss Pushpita under Section 164(5) CrPC and passed a direction on 08.05.2018 that the child be lodged to Mangalalok Nari Niketan, Agartala. The matter came up before this Court on 17.05.2018 when this Court after consideration of all aspects has taken the view that “the Child Welfare Committee may proceed and take appropriate decision obviously in the interest of the minor girl Miss Pushpita Das and the orders, if any, being passed by the Child Welfare Committee shall remain subject to the outcome of the pending appeal”. Liberty was given to the parties to file application seeking permission from the appropriate authority for meeting the minor girl child. According to this Court, the welfare of the minor child, Miss Pushpita Das is of paramount consideration. 14. Mrs. Liberty was given to the parties to file application seeking permission from the appropriate authority for meeting the minor girl child. According to this Court, the welfare of the minor child, Miss Pushpita Das is of paramount consideration. 14. Mrs. S Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Murari Lal Sidhana and Anr. Vs. Smt. Anita [case No. SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1652/2007] reported in Legal Eagle (Raj) 393, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Kishore Singh v. Nirmala Devi Kushwaha & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 MP 224 and the decision of the Apex court in Roxann Sharma Vs. Arun Sharma reported in (2015) 8 SCC 318 wherein the Apex Court has allowed the custody of the minor children to the persons other than their natural guardian or parents. 15. We have considered the facts of those cases cited by Mrs. S Deb (Gupta) which shall be discussed at later paragraphs. 16. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, parents of Miss Pushpita, would contend that when this Court vacating the order dated 03.09.2014 vide order dated 24.11.2018 decided the custody of Miss Pushpita to her parents, the respondents, she was initially very happy but after 2/3 days some telephone calls were received by Miss Pushpita and the parents observed that on receipt of the calls she became restless and expressed her willingness to go back to the house of the appellants. The learned counsel strenuously argued that considering the crucial nature of welfare of the minor girl child, the custody must be given to her parents. 17. Mr. Bhattacharjee has further contended that the appellants have downloaded some photographs from the mobile of Miss Pushpita from where they found some obscenity relating to Miss Pushpita. Mr. Bhattacharjee has produced the said photographs before this Court at the time of his deliberations and we have perused the photographs which, according to us, are really not expected from a minor girl like Miss Pushpita. Showing those photographs Mr. Bhattacharjee would contend that had the parents really been considering the welfare of Miss Pushpita, then they should not have been so careless and they ought to have been cautious about her movements. 18. Showing those photographs Mr. Bhattacharjee would contend that had the parents really been considering the welfare of Miss Pushpita, then they should not have been so careless and they ought to have been cautious about her movements. 18. Miss Pushpita Das, when she was 10 years old, deposed before the learned Family Court expressing her willingness to stay with the appellant (maternal grandparent). On her evidence, she says that she feels “comfortable” in staying with the appellants but she did not accuse her natural guardians, i.e. her father as well as her mother in any manner whatsoever. 19. Further, it is revealed from the evidence of the appellant that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint being case No. Misc. 18 of 2011 for recovery of the children including Miss Pushpita under pressure put by the respondent No.1, i.e. the father of minor Pushpita which assertion amply proves that the father being the natural guardian was all along interested and willing to bring Pushpita in his custody. 20. Further, according to this Court, Section 13 of the HMG Act, 1956 and Section 17 & 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 are complementary to each other and to decide a dispute of appointment of guardian the said provisions are to be read conjointly and harmoniously, where some tests or guidelines to determine what is for the welfare of the minor, are laid down. 21. By virtue of Section 6 of the HMG Act, 1956 the right of a minor’s custody lies with the natural guardian but the right is not absolute and the court has to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the minor. Where there is a guardian, a person who seeks to have the custody of the minor, has a heavy burden on him to show that the welfare of the minor demands that the custody shall be with him or her, in preference to the natural guardians. 22. This Court is of the opinion that before appointing a third party in preference to natural guardians, the court should give a clear finding that the natural guardians are not suitable persons and are unfit to look after the welfare of the minor. The custody of a minor has to be decided on the sole and predominant criteria to what would serve the interest and welfare of the minor. 23. The custody of a minor has to be decided on the sole and predominant criteria to what would serve the interest and welfare of the minor. 23. The evidence of Smt. Papri Das, the mother of Miss Pushpita has deposed that due to her illness she allowed her children to stay with the appellants but just after her recovery she wanted to take back her children from the custody of the appellant but on refusal she had to file a case for recovery of her children and with the help of the police she was able to recover the two children except Miss Pushpita and Pushpita was allowed to stay with the appellant at his request, on condition that he would return Pushpita to the custody of the respondents very safely. But the appellant refused to keep his promise compelling the other of Pushpita to lodge a complaint for her recovery. 24. In view of the discussions made above, in regard to our observations that the welfare of the minor child should be the paramount consideration to decide the question of appointment of guardianship, we have given our thoughtful considerations to the meaning of the world “welfare”. According to Black’s Law Dictionary [6th Edition, p-1594] “welfare” means well-doing or well-being in any respect; the enjoyment of world and common blessings of lie; exemption from any evil or calamity; prosperity; happiness. 25. So this court is not inclined to give much weightage to the statement of Miss Pushpita that she feels comfortable to stay with the appellant. 26. Further, the expression “welfare” has the widest amplitude. In the context of Section 13 of the HMG Act, 1956, it is well settled law that the word “welfare” is to be understood in its widest sense and embraces not merely the moral and physical well-being of the minor and happiness but every circumstance and every factor bearing upon the moral and religious welfare and the education and upbringing of the minor. 27. In Ankur Tripathi alias Tinnu Vs. 27. In Ankur Tripathi alias Tinnu Vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey & Ors., reported in AIR 1994 Allahabad 250 while deciding a similar dispute the High Court of Allahabad has held that where the parents had to part company of the child since his childhood on account of the illness of his mother and the child stayed with his maternal grandparents and later the parents filed a petition for recovery of the custody of the child, it was held that the parents being the natural guardians of the minor are entitled to the custody of the child, more so, when the child did not disclose any hatred against his parents. 28. Learned counsel further submits that the movements and behavioural attitude of Miss Pushpita is enough to say that either the appellants had/have no control over Miss Pushpita or they are indulging Miss Pushpita to lead a bohemian life or a life of her choice. 29. At the time of argument, a certificate of the Assam Rifles Public School, issued by the Principal of the said school on 06.11.2017, was placed before this court, wherefrom it is revealed that Miss Pushpita was studying in that school. Serial No.12 of the said certificate contains “whether qualified for promotion to higher class, if so, to which class” and against that column it is remarked as “No”, i.e. she was not qualified for promotion to higher class. It is further revealed that in the academic session 2016-2017 there were total 227 working days and Miss Pushpita was present in the class for only 152 days. Another certificate dated 09.06.2018 was placed before this Court from it is revealed that she was prosecuting her studies in the National Institute of Open Schooling and there is no evidence that she attended any of the classes. The said certificate was a handwritten certificate. 30. From the said certificates, this Court can arrive at a finding that the studies of Miss Pushpita was/is not progressing well in the custody of the appellants, since she abandoned her studies in a good school and has taken the shelter of open school. 31. This Court has interacted with the parents of Miss Pushpita in course of hearing on various dates on a number of occasions. 31. This Court has interacted with the parents of Miss Pushpita in course of hearing on various dates on a number of occasions. From the interactions it is observed that they are very serious about the custody and welfare of the minor child and they have expressed their annoyance to the upbringing of Miss Pushpita, who is in the custody of the appellants. The mother Smt. Papri Das has categorically stated before this Court that as a mother she was not safe in the house of the appellants since her womanhood and dignity were at stake. She vividly described the unhealthy and unbecoming atmosphere of the house of the appellants and expressed her fear that the atmosphere of the house of the appellants is not conducive for a girl’s well-being and it is very difficult to maintain the modesty and chastity of a girl in that atmosphere. 32. In everyday proceedings, this Court has given its bird’s eye view to the companions of the girl and the appellants who were sitting in the court room as well as the parents. Simultaneously, we have given our anxious look to the behaviour and attitude of the twin sister of Miss Pushpita as well as her brother who have been prosecuting their studies in the Assam Rifles School regularly. The twin sister and the brother, both are very keen to stay and live with Miss Pushpita, their elder sister. They appear to be most lovable to their eldest sister Pushpita. 33. This Court vide its order dated 17.05.2018 sent Miss Pushpita to the children home for girls, Unit-I, Abhoynagar with a direction upon the Child Welfare Committee that “the Child Welfare Committee may proceed and take appropriate decision obviously in the interest of the minor child Miss Pushpita Das and the orders, if any, being passed by the Child Welfare Committee shall remain subject to the outcome of the pending appeal.” 34. The Child Welfare Committee has furnished a report dated 27.07.2018 and made the following observations: “Observations of the Committee: After analyzing the version of both the parties the committee has come to the conclusion that the girl Miss Pushpita Das who is now passing through the stressful life situation is solely for improper guidance of both the parties. The Child Welfare Committee has furnished a report dated 27.07.2018 and made the following observations: “Observations of the Committee: After analyzing the version of both the parties the committee has come to the conclusion that the girl Miss Pushpita Das who is now passing through the stressful life situation is solely for improper guidance of both the parties. The Committee, then conduced interview with Miss Pushpita Das and repeated counseling by different group of counselors and clinical psychologist of Modern Psychiatric Hospital, Narsingarh, Agartala. During Counseling of Miss Pushpita Das, it was noticed that:- *Learning process is inadequate, i.e. writing, pronunciation, calculation etc. *She is more inclined to maternal grandparents and is having adjustment problem with biological parents. *She is unable to take any firm decision. *Motivation level is also poor and not interested to learn anything. From 13 to 18 years of age, i.e. adolescent period is called danger period for any child. Emotional exploitation is very much common with this group of child which is an alarming sign to take any stable decision for their life. In this span of age it becomes difficult for anyone to take any concrete decision. They remain confusing and curious with the identity crisis. So, at this junction they can be motivated easily. Curiosity attracts danger. Recommendation of the Committee: *Adequate Counseling by Counselor/Clinical Psychologist which may help her to build up her self confidence. *She needs regular counseling session by a counselor or clinical psychologist which may need long time for modification of her behavioral problems and also adjustment problem and to handle lifetime situational condition. *Motivation can play an important role for improvement of their self esteem, self realization. *Parental Counseling is also an important part for the Biological Parents.” 35. From the said report, it is clear that she is unable to take any firm decision. Her motivation level appears to be very poor and she is found to be not interested to learn anything. The psychologists who are experts have observed that the present age of Miss Pushpita may be termed as “danger period” and mostly exploitation is very much common with this group of child which is an alarming sign and makes one impossible to decide what is good and what is bad for him/her. 36. The psychologists who are experts have observed that the present age of Miss Pushpita may be termed as “danger period” and mostly exploitation is very much common with this group of child which is an alarming sign and makes one impossible to decide what is good and what is bad for him/her. 36. On the advent of the aforesaid facts, this Court is to consider the various facts of the legal concepts of guardianship, the appointment and declaration of a minor. Section 4(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 defines “minor” which is reproduced below:- 4(1) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875), is to be deemed not to have attained his majority” 37. Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 defines the age of majority, which is as follows: “3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India.-(1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before. (2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.” 38. However, Section 4A of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “HMG Act”) defines “minor” which is reproduced below: “4(a) “minor” means a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years.” 39. In the case in hand, Miss Pushpita Das will terminate her age of minority at the completion of the 18th year. But the object of the statute presupposes that welfare of a child still would continue even if he/she crosses the age of minority. 40. Under this Act, Section 4(b) defines “guardian”, which is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience: “4(b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes – (i) a natural guardian, (ii)a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or mother, (iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and (iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any court of wards.” 41. Section 6 of the HMG Act, 1956 defines “natural guardian” which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor. - The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor?s person as well as in respect of the minor?s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are – (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl - the father, and after him, the mother : provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; (b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section – (a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or (b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi). Explanation.- In this section, the expression “father” and “mother” do not include a step-father and a stepmother.” 42. From the said statue, it is clear that father, Sri Apu Das, in the case in hand, is the natural guardian of Miss Pushpita Das. The intention of the legislature appears to be very transparent and unambiguous when they are not inclined to even include the step father or step mother as the natural guardian of the minor child. 43. It would be apposite to refer to the preamble of the Act wherein describing natural guardians under the hindu law, it is quoted – “The Act vests wide powers in the court to appoint or declare a guardian of the person or property, or both, of a minor and empowers it to do so where it is satisfied that it is for the welfare of the minor to make such order. However, the Act was not intended to affect the rights of the parents and the husband to act as the natural guardians of the person of the minor and the court had, under the enactment, no authority to appoint a guardian for the person of a minor whose father is living and is not in the opinion of the court, unfit to be a guardian of the person of the minor nor in the case of a married female, if a minor, whose husband is not in the opinion of the court, unfit to be guardian of her person.” Quoted from Mulla’s Hindu Law, 21st Edition, Lexis Nexis P-1254. 44. In the case in hand, it is observed that father Sri Apu Das is very much akin to Miss Pushpita and is fighting tooth and nail since 2011 to get the custody of Miss Pushpita. During interaction with Sri Apu Das in the Court it is revealed that he is a well established businessman and is an upright person and thinks of providing the best education and proper upbringing of his minor daughter. He is found to be well-built and a man of personality. 45. Further, describing the definition of the welfare of the minor which must be of paramount consideration, the preamble of the HMG Act states: “The Crown or the State as pater partriae has jurisdiction to do all acts and things necessary for the protection of minors for they cannot take care of themselves and one common principle of law is that it is a prime duty of the court where satisfied, that it is for the welfare of the minor that an order should be made appointing or declaring a guardian of his person or property, it should make such order. Sections 7 to 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, give statutory form to this general rule of guardianship law. The present enactment, although it is not exhaustive of the law on the subject and given only certain supplemental rules principally affecting natural and testamentary guardians and the restrictions on the powers of such guardians, reiterates the salutary rule that in appointing or declaring guardians of the person or property of a Hindu minor, the paramount consideration of the court should be the welfare of the minor (s 13). The expression “welfare” in this context, it is settled law, is to be understood in its widest sense and embraces not merely the material and physical and well-being of the minor and happiness, but every circumstance and every factor bearing upon the moral and religious welfare and the education and upbringing of the minor. In the matter of any such appointment or any such appointment or declaration of a guardian, the first and the inevitable starting point and the dominant consideration for the court at every stage is the welfare of the minor.” Mulla’s Hindu Law, 21st Edition, Lexis Nexis P-1258. 46. In the case in hand, as the father of Miss Pushpita is admittedly alive and as there is no case that he has ceased to be a hindu or renounced the world, it has to be held that he continues to be the natural guardian of his minor girl, Miss Pushpita. Merely because of the fact that Miss Pushpita was residing with the appellants (maternal grandparents) and was not residing with the respondents, particularly, the father, it will not be appropriate to hold that the father being the natural guardian, as discussed above, has ceased to be natural guardian. The natural guardian ceases to be so only under the two grounds mentioned in the proviso to Section 6. The proviso makes the position clear that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor if he has ceased to be a Hindu or if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or ascetic (yati or Sanyasi). 47. On a bare reading of Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, it is found that the court can appoint a guardian for the minor or his property or both if it is satisfied that it is for the welfare of the minor. Albeit, Section 7 deals with the declaration and appointment of a guardian for the minor, Section 19(b) provides that when the father is living, none else can be appointed as guardian unless he is found unfit to be a guardian. Any person interested in the minor may move an application for the appointment of a guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. Any person interested in the minor may move an application for the appointment of a guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. Even in a case, where father of a minor is alive, Section 19(b) provides that for the appointment of another person as guardian if the natural guardian is found unfit. 48. In the case in hand, there is no evidence that at any point of time the father is found unfit or he was not interest at all to take the custody of the minor daughter or was found to be apathetic to the welfare of the minor daughter, Miss Pushpita. 49. More so, the appellants have miserably failed to project a case that the father is not economically sound or he is physically unfit or both the parents have neglected the well being of their minor daughter. 50. It would be apposite to refer to the case of Roxann Sharma (Supra) wherein the Apex Court at para 7 has observed as under: “7. Several other statutes also contain definitions of 'guardian' such as the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which in Section 2(j) states that – "2.(j) “guardian”, in relation to a child, means his natural guardian or any other person having the actual charge or control over the child and recognized by the competent authority as a guardian in course of proceedings before that authority;" Since the Juvenile Act is principally concerned with the welfare of the juvenile the accent understandably and correctly is on the "person" rather than the estate. The Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1994 defines the term “guardian” as- “3.(viii) Guardian.- .... any person to whom the care, nurture or custody of any child falls by law, or by natural right or by recognized usage, or who has accepted or assumed the care, nurture or custody of any child, or to whom the care, nurture or custody of any child has been entrusted by any lawful authority;"” 51. It also would be relevant to refer para 5 of the decision of Roxann Sharma (supra) wherein the Apex Court has dealt with the import and amplitude of the legal concept of guardianship. The said para 5 is quoted below: “5. We shall consider the import and amplitude of the legal concept of guardianship on first principles. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn. The said para 5 is quoted below: “5. We shall consider the import and amplitude of the legal concept of guardianship on first principles. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn. contains a definition of “guardianship” which commends itself to us. It states that – "Guardian.- A person lawfully invested with the power, and charged with the duty, of taking care of the person and managing the property and rights of another person, who, for defect of age, understanding, or self-control, is considered incapable of administering his own affairs. One who legally has the care and management of the person, or the estate, or both, of a child during its minority." Thereafter there are as many twelve classifications of a guardian but we shall reproduce only one of them, which reads– “A general guardian is one who has the general care and control of the person and estate of his ward; while a special guardian is one who has special or limited powers and duties with respect to his ward, e.g., a guardian who has the custody of the estate but not of the person, or vice versa, or a guardian ad litem". (emphasis in original) Black's Law Dictionary also defines “custody” as – “Custody. - The care and control of a thing or person. The keeping, guarding, care, watch, inspection, preservation or security of a thing, carrying with it the idea of the thing being within the immediate personal care and control of the person to whose custody it is subjected. Immediate charge and control, and not the final, absolute control of ownership, implying responsibility for the protection and preservation of the thing in custody.”” 52. From the above definitions of “Guardian” it is crystal clear that father is the natural guardian of a minor child. In the case in hand, there is no assertion that the other two minor children of the respondents, are not comfortable with their father Sri Apu Das as well as the mother, Smt. Papri Das. On each and every date, during the course of hearing of the twin sister of Miss Pushpita and her brother, they were found to be very generous. Their behavioural attitude appears to be very good and from their conduct in the court and during their interaction with Miss Pushpita, it appears that they are very keen to lead a happy life with Miss Pushpita. Their behavioural attitude appears to be very good and from their conduct in the court and during their interaction with Miss Pushpita, it appears that they are very keen to lead a happy life with Miss Pushpita. From their appearance, it is evident that their upbringing has been very good. 53. In Roxann Sharma (supra) the custody of the minor child though initially was given to the father but taking into consideration the statutory postulation contained in Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Apex Court has held that the custody of a minor who has not acquired the age of 5 years shall ordinarily be with the mother. It is further observed by the Apex Court at para 13 of the decision in Roxann Sharma (supra) inter alia, that the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, the HMG Act) postulates that the custody of an infant or a tender aged child should be given to his/her mother unless the father discloses cogent reasons that are indicative of and presage the likelihood of the welfare and interest of the child being undermined or jeopardized if the custody is retained by the mother. 54. The Apex Court in Roxann Sharma (supra) has further clarified that Section 6 of the HMG Act or for that matter any other provision including those contained in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 does not disqualify the mother to custody of the child even after the latter’s crossing the age of 5 years. The Apex Court has categorically made the following observations: “18. ...... There can be no cavil that when a court is confronted by conflicting claims of custody there are no rights of the parents which have to be enforced; the child is not a chattel or a ball that is bounced to and fro the parents. It is only the child?s welfare which is the focal point for consideration. Parliament rightly thinks that the custody of a child less than five years of age should ordinarily be with the Mother and this expectation can be deviated from only for strong reasons. .....” 55. What we have gathered from the discussion of Roxann Sharma (Supra) is that statutory prescription can only be violated when there are sufficient and cogent reasons for deviation from a particular prescription of law. 56. .....” 55. What we have gathered from the discussion of Roxann Sharma (Supra) is that statutory prescription can only be violated when there are sufficient and cogent reasons for deviation from a particular prescription of law. 56. In the light of the discussions made above, and considering the legal positions, this Court finds no cogent reason to run counter to the provisions contained in Section 6 of the HMG Act. 57. We have carefully examined the citations in Murari Lal Sidhana (supra), Ram Kishore Singh (supra) and Roxann Sharma (supra) of which the facts of the former two cases are found to be dissimilar to the facts of the present case. However, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the decision of the Apex Court in Roxann Sharma (supra) as enumerated above. 58. We clarify that this Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the fact that the appellant is a retired security guard having pension of Rs.12,000/- month and is aged above 65 years. Moreover, the environment of the appellant’s house is not conducive for the proper upbringing of Miss Pushpita. It is not the “comfort” alone is to be considered, but the overall welfare of the minor is the sole and predominant criterion to be determined for her better and descent growing both physically and mentally to lead quality and respectable life the society expects from a child. Further, we are not unmindful to the ground reality that imparting better education has become highly expensive now a days. To pursue education through open school is one of the indicatives to the inability of the maternal grandparents to continue her study as a regular student in a reputed school from where her study has been abandoned. 59. Being the biological parents they have a right to seek custody of their minor child, Miss Pushpita. On scanning the record, this Court is of the opinion that Miss Pushpita is not mature enough to form an intelligent opinion. The report of the Child Welfare Committee also reveals that she is not in a position to arrive at a firm decision and she is suffering identity crisis. She needs a proper guidance and enough care which, according to this Court, is not possible for the appellant. 60. The report of the Child Welfare Committee also reveals that she is not in a position to arrive at a firm decision and she is suffering identity crisis. She needs a proper guidance and enough care which, according to this Court, is not possible for the appellant. 60. Hence, considering the essence of the statute, as discussed above, we find nothing exceptional circumstances as projected by the appellant to persuade us to deviate from the objectivity of the parliamentary intendment enacted in the statutes and it would be safe to handover the custody of the minor daughter, Miss Pushpita Das to her biological parents, i.e. the respondents in the appeal. 61. Learned Family Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly rejected the prayer of the appellant to appoint to him as guardian of Miss Pushpita. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala is hereby upheld and affirmed. 62. It is pertinent to mention that by dint of order of this Court, Miss Pushpita Das is sheltered in Children Home for Girls, Unit-I at Abhoynagar under the care of the Child Welfare Committee. In view of this judgment, the Child Welfare committee is requested to handover Miss Pushpita Das to her biological parents, Sri Apu Das & Smt. Papri Das (Malakar) forthwith. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.