JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is defendant’s appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1984”) arises out of judgement and order dated 2.8.2016, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, whereby, application filed by plaintiff respondent No. 1 Krishna Pal under Sections 7 and 10 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1890”) claiming guardianship and custody of minor Ira Dhaka has been rejected and paternal grand parents of minor namely respondent Nos. 1 and 5, herein, have been granted visiting rights to meet ‘minor’ as per the scheme provided for in the order dated 2.8.2016 itself. 2. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Varinder Singh for the respondents. 3. Adverting to the factual matrix of the present appeal, it appears that the marriage of the appellant Madam Jyoti Rana was solemnized with Sanjeev Dhaka on 12.6.2009 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Custom. Out of this wedlock, a daughter namely, Ira Dhaka was born on 7.6.2011. When the minor was just 21 days old, appellant Madam Jyoti Rana (natural guardian of minor), leaving minor with her maternal grand parents, left for Australia. Unfortunately, Couple could not continue marriage on account of strained relations. As a result, husband Sanjeev Dhaka instituted proceedings for divorce from his wife Madam Jyoti Rana. The divorce proceedings initiated by husband in Australia came to be allowed by Australian Federal Maternity Court, vide order dated 21st January, 2013 w.e.f. 1.3.2013. 4. Subsequently, paternal grand father of minor, Ira Dhaka, namely, Krishna Pal (plaintiff respondent No. 1) filed a Miscellaneous Petition under Sections 7 and 10 of Act, 1890, claiming guardianship and custody of minor, Ira Dhaka. The same came to be registered as Misc. Case No. 72 of 2014 (Krishna Pal v. Jyoti Rana and others) in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid miscellaneous case, Court below passed an interim order whereby, maternal grand parents of minor, Ira Dhaka, were restrained from taking minor Ira Dhaka outside jurisdiction of Family Court, Ghaziabad. 5. During pendency of aforesaid proceedings, Jyoti Rana, mother of minor Ira Dhaka, instituted proceedings in Australia for guardianship and custody of minor, Ira Dhaka on 13.8.2014. The same was registered as M.L.C. No. 7145 of 2015. 5. During pendency of aforesaid proceedings, Jyoti Rana, mother of minor Ira Dhaka, instituted proceedings in Australia for guardianship and custody of minor, Ira Dhaka on 13.8.2014. The same was registered as M.L.C. No. 7145 of 2015. The aforesaid proceedings are stated to have been deferred by Australian Court on account of pendency of Misc. Case No. 72 of 2014 regarding custody of minor. 6. Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad has rejected application filed by paternal grand father Krishna Pal seeking guardianship as well as custody of minor Ira Dhaka. Court below has further directed that custody of minor, Ira Dhaka, would remain with maternal grand parents and paternal grand parents of minor were granted visiting rights to meet minor Ira Dhaka in accordance with the scheme provided for in the order itself. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 2.8.2016, passed by Court below i.e. Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, natural mother of minor namely, Madam Jyoti Rana has come up in appeal before us. 7. It transpires from record that claim of Krishan Pal, plaintiff respondent/paternal grand father of minor, Ira Dhaka, regarding guardianship and custody of minor, Ira Dhaka, was contested by some of defendant/respondents in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2014. The defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 4, Vikram Singh and Smt. Aneeta Rana, respectively, who are maternal grand parents of minor and also in custody of the minor, filed their joint written statement before Principal judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad denying and disputing claim of plaintiff respondent No. 1 herein namely, Krishna Pal. Similarly, Madam Jyoti Rana, natural mother of minor Ira Dhaka also filed her written statement denying averments made in the miscellaneous petition. Parties went to trial on different issues and led evidence in support of their respective case. 8. On the basis of pleadings raised by parties, Court below formulated eight issues for adjudication. Since the issues framed by the Court below clearly depict the points of difference between the parties, we feel it appropriate to reproduce the same herein below : (1). Whether Ira Dhaka is under the custody of her mother Jyoti and on the directions of the natural mother the daughter is being looked after. (2). Who is the natural guardian of a minor Hindu. Whether Ira Dhaka is under the custody of her mother Jyoti and on the directions of the natural mother the daughter is being looked after. (2). Who is the natural guardian of a minor Hindu. (3) Whether the petition for appointment of guardian of the minor Ira Dhaka has been filed by concealing the factum regarding the pendency of the matter in the Australian Court. (4) Whether the defendant Sanjeev Dhaka has not filed any written statement, and if yes, its effect. (5) Whether the plaintiff has not made any declaration in terms of Section 10 (3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Whether the alleged declaration is not supported by independent witnesses. (6) In whose custody will the interest of the minor Ira Dhaka, her development, health and education will lie? (7) Whether the prayer of the plaintiff seeking his appointment as the guardian of the minor Ira Dhaka is liable to be allowed on the grounds raised in the plaint. (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to visiting rights of meeting his grand daughter Kmr. Ira Dhaka and therefore, the grant of the same is justified as alternatively prayed for in the written arguments filed by the plaintiff. 9. Court below decided Issue-1 against natural mother Madam Jyoti Rana by holding that the maternal grand parents are looking after the interest of minor, who is in their custody with which minor is satisfied. Issue-2 was decided by holding that as per mandate of Section 19, of Act, 1890, father, if alive, and not ineligible, then in such circumstances, Court cannot appoint any relative as guardian. However, while deciding Issue-1 Court categorically held that parents of minor are not eligible for being appointed as guardian of minor. Issue-3 was decided by holding that plaintiff has filed suit without disclosing true and complete facts, as such, plaintiff has not approached Court with clean hands. Issue-4 was decided that as held in adjudication of Issue-1, natural father namely, Sanjeev Dhaka has not filed any written statement but right of getting appointed as guardian of minor, mother has delegated the same in favour of her father, effect of the same will be that Sanjeev Dhaka, natural father of minor cannot be appointed as guardian of minor as long as he continues to be natural guardian of minor. Issue-5 was decided by holding that though declaration in terms of Section 10 (3) of Act, 1890 has not been made nor the same has been supported by independent witnesses but it will not be in the interest of justice to dismiss miscellaneous petition on the ground of technicality. Issues 6 and 7 were decided together and it was held that in comparison to paternal grand father and maternal parents, the interest of minor child, shall best be protected in case, she is given in the guardianship of her maternal parents. Issue-8 was decided to the effect that the application filed by respondent No. 1 Krishna Pal under Sections 7 and 10 of Act, 1890 claiming guardianship and custody of minor Ira Dhaka is liable to be rejected but paternal grand parents will have visiting rights of meeting with the minor Ira Dhaka. 10. Learned counsel for appellants has urged that appellant being natural mother of minor, is clearly entitled to custody of minor and also being declared as natural guardian of minor which shall itself reject the claim of any other person for appointment as guardian of minor as natural guardian will exclude others from claiming guardianship of a minor. 11. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant appeared attractive at the first flush and accordingly, we undertook the exercise of judging the same in the light of provisions of Act, 1890 and the facts as have come on the record. 12. Section 7 of Act, 1890 deals with the power of Court to appoint a guardian, and reads as under : “7. Power of the Court to make order as to guardianship.—(1) Where the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that an order should be made— (a) appointing a guardian of his person or property or both, or (b) declaring a person to be such a guardian the Court may make an order accordingly. (2) An order under this section shall imply the removal of any guardian who has not been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court. (2) An order under this section shall imply the removal of any guardian who has not been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court. (3) Where a guardian has been appointed by will or other instrument or appointed or declared by the Court, an order under this section appointing or declaring another person to be guardian in his stead shall not be made until the powers of the guardian appointed or declared as aforesaid have ceased under the provisions of this Act.” 13. Similarly, Section 10 of Act, 1890 prescribes the manner in which application shall be made. The same is also reproduced herein below for ready reference: “10. Similarly, Section 10 of Act, 1890 prescribes the manner in which application shall be made. The same is also reproduced herein below for ready reference: “10. Form of application.—(1) If the application is not made by the Collector, it shall be by petition signed and verified in manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 (14 of 1882)1, for the signing and verification of a plaint, and stat­ing, so far as can be ascertained,— (a) the name, sex, religion, date of birth and ordinary residence of the minor; (b)where the minor is a female, whether she is married and if so, the name and age of her husband; (c) the nature, situation and approximate value of the property, if any, of the minor; (d) the name and residence of the person having the custody or possession of the person or property of the minor; (e) what near relations the minor has and where they reside; (f) whether a guardian of the person or property or both, of the minor has been appointed by any person entitled or claiming to be entitled by the law to which the minor is subject to make such an appointment; (g) whether an application has at any time been made to the Court or to any other Court with respect to the guardianship of the person or property or both, of the minor and if so, when, to what Court and with what result; (h)whether the application is for the appointment or declaration of a guardian of the person of the minor, or of his property, or of both; (i) where the application is to appoint a guardian, the qualifications of the proposed guardian; (j) where the application is to declare a person to be a guardian, the grounds on which that person claims; (k) the causes which have led to the making of the application; and (l) such other particulars, if any, as may be prescribed or as the nature of the application renders it necessary to state. (2) If the application is made by the Collector, it shall be by letter addressed to the Court and forwarded by post or in such other manner as may be found convenient, and shall state as far as possible the particulars mentioned in sub-section (1). (2) If the application is made by the Collector, it shall be by letter addressed to the Court and forwarded by post or in such other manner as may be found convenient, and shall state as far as possible the particulars mentioned in sub-section (1). (3) The application must be accompanied by a declaration of the willingness of the proposed guardian to act, and the declaration must be signed by him and attested by at least two witnesses.” 14. From the facts as noted above, we find that appellant Madam Jyoti Rana, mother of minor Ira Dhaka, had abandoned minor just after 21 days from the date of her birth which is 7.6.2011. Mother went to Australia leaving minor in the custody and care of her parents i.e. maternal grand parents of minor. We further find that no application under Section 7 read with 10 of Act, 1890 was made by the present appellant before Court below seeking custody of minor. No counter claim was raised by present appellant seeking custody of minor in preference to paternal grand father of minor or maternal grand parents of minor. 15. On the contrary, appellant opposed claim of paternal grand father regarding custody and guardianship of minor. Thus, custody and guardianship of minor Ira Dhaka has been claimed by mother namely, appellant Madam Jyoti Rana for the first time before this Court. The claim so set up by appellant is contrary to defence set up by her before Court below. 16. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above, the following two questions arise for determination in the present appeal : (I) Whether custody of minor girl who is now less than ten years of age can be denied to mother. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, mother in entitled to custody of the minor child namely Ira Dhaka. 17. Both the questions are interlinked and are therefore, can be dealt with together. 18. We have already referred to the provisions of Section 7 and Section 10 of Act, 1890. Section 17 of Act, 1890 provides for the matters which are required to be considered by Court in appointing a guardian. Since Court below, by means of impugned judgement has appointed maternal grand parents as guardian of minor, it is useful to reproduce Section 17 of Act, 1890 as under : “17. Section 17 of Act, 1890 provides for the matters which are required to be considered by Court in appointing a guardian. Since Court below, by means of impugned judgement has appointed maternal grand parents as guardian of minor, it is useful to reproduce Section 17 of Act, 1890 as under : “17. Matters to be considered by the Court in appointing guardian.—(1) In appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor. (2) In considering what will be for the welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property. (3) If minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference. [***] (5) The Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his will.” 19. Apart from the aforesaid provisions of Act, 1890, there is also the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1956”) which provides for guardianship of a Hindu Minor. Section 6 of Act, 1956 provides for guardianship of a Hindu Minor and reads as under : “6. Apart from the aforesaid provisions of Act, 1890, there is also the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1956”) which provides for guardianship of a Hindu Minor. Section 6 of Act, 1956 provides for guardianship of a Hindu Minor and reads as under : “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) in case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl the mother, and after her, the father; (c) in the case of a married girl—the husband: 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).” 20. Thus, from the mandate of Section 6 of Act, 1956, it is clear that ordinarily custody of a minor who is less than five years of age is to be with mother and secondly, custody of minor is primarily with the father and after him mother. In the present case, custody of a minor girl is of tender age is involved, hence we have taken required care and caution to decide the same keeping in mind paramount interest of child. 21. Admittedly, the father has not come forward claiming custody and guardianship of minor child. Furthermore, age of the girl as of now will be seven years. No claim was raised by appellant claiming custody of minor Ira Dhaka when minor had not even completed five years of age. Therefore, the issue, whether mother can be deprived guardianship and custody of a minor assumes importance in the facts and circumstances of this case. Fortunately, this issue no longer res integra. No claim was raised by appellant claiming custody of minor Ira Dhaka when minor had not even completed five years of age. Therefore, the issue, whether mother can be deprived guardianship and custody of a minor assumes importance in the facts and circumstances of this case. Fortunately, this issue no longer res integra. We find answer in the judgement of Supreme Court in Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, AIR 2015 SC 2232 , wherein after considering Section 6 of Act, 1956, Court observed that custody of a minor who is less than five years of age, can be denied to mother for strong reasons. Paragraph 16 of the said judgement is relevant and is reproduced as under : “The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 79 of 2014 has categorically ordered that whilst the custody of Thalbir shall continue with the Father, the Mother shall get “visitation rights” which he temporarily fixed at least three days in a week “at a mutual agreeable place preferably within the jurisdiction of the Court,” situate in Goa; the Trial is continuing in Goa. We fail to locate or appreciate any reason or justification for the intervention of the High Court in Writ Petition 576 of 2014 which is the subject-matter of Civil Appeal of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) 32581 of 2014 by a different learned Single Judge. We have already noticed the intendment of Section 14 of the G&W Act which acknowledges the salutary necessity of only one Court in dealing with the guardianship or custody disputes pertaining to the minor. This petition challenged the proprietary of the Order dated 6.9.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge which in turn was in compliance with the Order dated 2.8.2014, which it may be recalled granted visitation rights to the Mother for at least three days in a week within the jurisdiction of the Court. The annals of the turbulent marriage of the parties, the IVF conception of Thalbir etc., have been duly noted by the first learned Single Judge and the learned Civil Judge. The learned Single Judge has then questioned the very applicability of HGM Act as well as G&W Act in the State of Goa, an aspect which had not been agitated by either the Mother or the Father in any of the earlier proceedings. The learned Single Judge has then questioned the very applicability of HGM Act as well as G&W Act in the State of Goa, an aspect which had not been agitated by either the Mother or the Father in any of the earlier proceedings. 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. The need to have a continuity in adjudication ought to have persuaded the second learned Single Judge to have recused himself in preference to his learned Brother who decided the previous Writ Petition.” 22. Thus, it is apparent that custody of a child, less than five years of age, should ordinarily be with mother and be deviated only for strong reasons. 23. Thus, Court has to see, whether exceptional circumstances exist to deprive mother, custody and guardianship of minor Ira Dhaka. 24. In the case in hand, minor girl child completed age of five years on 7.6.2016. No claim was made by mother seeking custody and guardianship of minor during this period even when Section 6 of Act, 1956 specifically provided for the same. Father of minor has not raised any claim seeking custody and guardianship of his own minor daughter. The claim regarding custody and guardianship of minor has been raised by natural mother for the first time by means of present appeal in 2016 i.e. after more than five years from the date of birth of the minor. 25. From the materials brought on the record, we hardly find any factor to show that natural mother is competent enough to maintain minor and interest of minor shall best be protected in case she is given in the custody of mother. In absence of such material before us, coupled with the fact that minor child has been in custody and care of her maternal grand parents since July, 2011, we are of the view that any attempt to dislodge present situation would adversely affect minor. In absence of such material before us, coupled with the fact that minor child has been in custody and care of her maternal grand parents since July, 2011, we are of the view that any attempt to dislodge present situation would adversely affect minor. To reiterate, no material has been brought on record, persuasive and convincing enough, compelling us to take a view that immediate restoration of custody of child to appellant mother is obligatory, or in the interest and welfare of minor. Finding recorded by Court below that minor girl child has been looked after by her maternal grand parents from her birth till date, could not be dislodge by learned counsel for appellant. 26. For all the reasons given herein above, no case for interference is made out. Appeal lacks merit. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs.