JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.9.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar in Miscellaneous Civil Application no.9 of 2014, the appellants - original opponents have preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 2. Heard Mr. Nipul Gondalia, learned advocate for Mr. Z.L. Khan, learned advocate for the appellants - original opponents and Mr. Dipak B. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent original applicant. 3. Following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:- That, the respondent herein married Tejalben daughter of one Bharatbhai Parsottambhai Makwana and out of the said wedlock, one son, named, Viral was born on 17.6.2012. By an application as provided under Sections 7 and 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the respondent - original applicant approached the Family Court and contended that the respondent herein - original applicant is the natural guardian and father of the child Viral and prayed for his custody. Record also indicates that the wife of the original applicant Tejalben has expired and son Viral went with the appellants - original opponents after the death rituals were over and the application was filed as the custody of the child was not given back to the original applicant father of the child. 4. Record indicates that on the said application being filed by the respondent original applicant, the Family Court, Bhavnagar issued notice to the appellants - original opponents. Paper-book indicates that the said notice was sent by RPAD by the Family Court, Bhavnagar to the appellants - original opponents. However, it was refused. The Family Court proceeded further on merits and passed the impugned order. 5. Mr. Gondalia, learned advocate for the appellants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this appeal and has submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellants original opponents and straightway the order was passed. It is further contended that the Family Court has wrongly believed the case of the respondent - original applicant and considering the say of the original applicant - respondent herein, as gospel truth, has passed the impugned order. Mr. Gondalia therefore submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the custody of the minor - Viral deserves to be given to the appellants - original opponents who are their grand parents. Mr. Mr. Gondalia therefore submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the custody of the minor - Viral deserves to be given to the appellants - original opponents who are their grand parents. Mr. Gondalia also lastly contended that only because the respondent - original applicant is father and a natural guardian, it does not mean that the custody of the minor child should always be given to the father. On the aforesaid grounds, it is therefore contended that the appeal may be allowed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Dipak Patel, learned advocate for the respondent - original applicant has supported the impugned order. Relying upon the copy of the envelop which is forming part of the record, Mr. Patel contended that the appellants, having refused the service, cannot contend that the order passed is an ex-parte order. It is further contended that the appellants herein are not the direct relatives of the deceased wife of the respondent and the Family Court has considered the aspect of paramount interest of the child and therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Mr. Patel therefore submitted that the appeal, even otherwise, is without any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further contentions and/or submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 8. We have perused the paper book and the original record and proceedings. Upon considering the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned order, it clearly transpires that the respondent herein married Tejalben and the minor Viral was born out of their wedlock on 17.6.2012. It is a matter of record that wife of the respondent herein has expired and the respondent herein is the natural guardian being the father of minor Viral. Having refused the service of the notice/summons issued by the Family Court and having preferred not to participate in the proceedings before the Family Court, it is not open for the appellants now to contend before this Court in appeal that they were not given any opportunity. On the contrary, the record establishes that they have not availed the opportunity otherwise granted by the Family Court. On the contrary, the record establishes that they have not availed the opportunity otherwise granted by the Family Court. On perusal of the record and proceedings as well as considering the deposition of the respondent, we find that the Family Court has rightly considered the aspect of welfare of the minor child and paramount consideration of the minor child is properly considered and the Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent original applicant being father and natural guardian is entitled to custody of the minor child. Rojkam indicates that as many as 8 adjournments were granted by the Family Court before passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the notice was already sent which was refused by the appellants herein and therefore, it cannot be said that the opportunity was not given by the Family Court. Even considering the statement made in the memo of appeal as well as considering the examination-in-chief of the respondent original applicant at Exh.10, it reveals that mental state of affairs of the father-in-law of the respondent - original applicant is not proper. It further reveals that appellants no.1 and 2 are not the real parents of the wife of the original applicant - respondent herein and similarly appellant no.3 is the grandmother of the deceased wife of the original applicant - respondent herein. The age of the minor Viral even as on date, when the matter is being considered by this Court, is hardly six and a half years and considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the paramount interest of the minor child Viral would be maintained if he stays with the respondent original applicant his father, in addition to the fact that the respondent - original applicant is the natural guardian of the minor Viral. 9. The learned advocate for the appellants has not been even remotely or orally on the basis of the record of this appeal, is able to show that the respondent is not a fit person to have the custody of the minor child Viral. There is nothing on record even otherwise to show that the respondent - original applicant is in any manner involved in any other offence or that has no means to maintain the child. There is nothing on record even otherwise to show that the respondent - original applicant is in any manner involved in any other offence or that has no means to maintain the child. On the contrary, in his deposition which is not controverted, it reveals that as father, he intends to see that his child minor Viral studies in English medium school. Considering all these, we are of the opinion that welfare of the child lies in his staying with his father respondent herein - original applicant. 10. In totality of facts therefore, we find no merit in this appeal. The Family Court has committed no error in allowing the application. No interference is called for. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Registry shall transmit the original record and proceedings back to the Family Court forthwith.