ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J Heard. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Sakti, in Civil M.J.C. No. 09/2016, wherein an application filed by the respondent-mother herein for custody of the child was allowed. Being aggrieved by such order, the instant appeal is by the grandfather and grandfather. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that on 29.04.2012, appellant/respondent Suman Jolhe was married to Umashanker Jolhe and a child was born out of wedlock whose name is Harsh who put to tug-of war at present. When the application was filed, the age of the child was three years. It was pleaded by the respondent-mother that because of the torture meted out to her, she was residing at her parental house from 21.09.2016 at village Dhurkot and the husband forcefully kept the child with him. It was pleaded that she wanted to get back the child but all efforts went in vain and for some reason of the other, the custody of child continued with the father. On 30.09.2016, she came to know that her husband died and thereafter, the custody of the child are with the grandfather and grandmother/the appellants herein and they were not handing over the child as such, this petition for custody was preferred. 3. The respondents/appellants (grandfather and grandmother) herein, in their reply made averments that respondent-mother initially forcefully took the child and went back to her parental home. It was stated that she continued to extend threat to the husband on many occasions and because of such abetment, the husband committed suicide. Before that the child was in custody of husband. It is further stated in suicidal note, respondent Suman and her family members were made solely responsible for the death/suicide. They further stated that even after receipt of the notice that the husband died, she neither visited nor shown the love and affection by any means to the child instead wanted to kill him. Therefore, the custody of the child should not be handed over to the respondent-mother. 4. The learned Family Court came to a conclusion that the mother being the natural guardian, the custody of the child should be handed over to her. Hence, this appeal by the grandfather and grandmother. 5. Therefore, the custody of the child should not be handed over to the respondent-mother. 4. The learned Family Court came to a conclusion that the mother being the natural guardian, the custody of the child should be handed over to her. Hence, this appeal by the grandfather and grandmother. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that during the course of time, circumstances have changed and the respondent-mother got remarried in the year 2021 and out of that marriage, a child was born. He further submits that therefore she would not be so affectionate to look after the welfare of the child as otherwise it could have been because of the subsequent marriage and the conduct which is shown by the mother. He would further submit that interaction made with the child by the Court would reflect that the child wanted to remain in the company of his grandfather and grandmother, therefore, the order of the learned Court below required to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-mother would submit that the mother being natural guardian of the child, is entitled to get back the custody of the child. With respect to the second marriage, this fact was disputed that she has remarried in the year 2021, and another child is born and she resides at village Dhurkot, Tahsil Dabra at her new matrimonial home and the order of the learned Family Court being well merited, do not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the evidence including the order-sheets of this Court, which has much relevance in the factual subsequent development which took place. 8. The order sheet of this Court would show that after the custody of the child was directed to be handed over to the respondent-mother, the appeal was filed and on 12.02.2018, the respondent-mother was given privilege to meet the child in the mediation centre. Subsequent order dated 23.02.2018 would show that the mother was given visitation right and in such order, reference of charge sheet under Section 306 read with section 34 of IPC was also made. This Court perused the criminal case which purports to the allegation attributed to wife, the respondent herein. Subsequent order dated 23.02.2018 would show that the mother was given visitation right and in such order, reference of charge sheet under Section 306 read with section 34 of IPC was also made. This Court perused the criminal case which purports to the allegation attributed to wife, the respondent herein. However, the Court did not record any opinion or comment and respondent-mother was given the visitation right and the custody of the child was allowed to be kept by the grandfather and grandmother. The relevant part of order dated 23.02.2018 with regard to the visitation right and the direction of this Court are as follows:- “(6) We therefore order that the custody and residence of the child Harsh will be as follows: (A) (i) The child will now continue to be with the Appellants. (ii) The Appellants will hand over the child to the Respondent at 3.30 pm on 01.03.2018. The Respondent will return the child to the Appellants at 09.00 am on 05.03.2018. (iii) The Appellants will thereafter hand over the child to Respondent at 3.30 pm on 09.03.2018. The Respondent will return the child to the Appellants at 09.00 am on 12.03.2018. iv) The Appellants will hand over the child to Respondent at 3.30 pm on 23.03.2018. The Respondent will return the child to the Appellants at 09.00 am on 26.03.2018. (v) The Appellants will hand over the child to Respondent at 3.30 pm on 28.03.2018. The Respondent will return the child to the Appellants at 9.00 am on 02.04.2018. (vi) The Appellants will hand over the child to Respondent at 3.30 pm on 06.04.2018. The Respondent will return the child to the Appellants at 09.00 am on 09.04.2018. (B) The handing over and returning of the child should take place in the office of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa under the due certification by the Civil Reader of that Court. 9. Subsequent order dated 12.04.2018 about visitation right to respondent-mother is also on record, which reads as under : “4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we order that the custody and residence of the child Harsh will be as follows : (i) The child will continue to be with the appellants. (ii) The appellants will hand over the child to the respondent at 3.30 pm on Saturday of every week. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we order that the custody and residence of the child Harsh will be as follows : (i) The child will continue to be with the appellants. (ii) The appellants will hand over the child to the respondent at 3.30 pm on Saturday of every week. The respondent will return the child to the appellants at 9.00 am on the next Monday till disposal of this FAM. (iii) The handing over and returning of the child should take place in the office of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa under the due certification by the Civil Reader of that Court. 5. In view of above, I.A.No.1/2017 stands disposed of. 6. Now list the matter for final hearing in its due course. 7. Record of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti be returned back immediately. 10. The said order is further followed by an order dated 03.02.2021, which was pursuant to the memo dated 24.11.2020 sent by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, wherein it was stated that the respondentMother was not appearing in the Court from 24.10.2020 onwards to have custody of the child in the weekends as per the direction of the Court dated 12.04.2018 (supra). The Court, after consideration of the said PUD, passed the following order on 03.02.2021, which reads as under :- “We have perused memo dated 24.11.2020 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, wherein, it has been found that the respondent is not appearing in the Court below from 24.10.2020 onwards to have the custody of child in the weekends as per the direction of this Court passed on 12.04.2018. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that because of the Covid-19 pandemic situation and other complications, respondentwife is finding herself unable to come to Court to keep weekly custody of the child. And as and when situation eases out, she would be making appropriate prayer before the Court below for weekly custody of the child as per the direction of this Court Considering the aforesaid submission, it is directed that the appellants shall not be required to produce the child before the Court below on every weekends but only when the respondent moves an application before the Court below seeking weekly custody of the child as per the order dated 12.04.2018. The matter be listed for final hearing before appropriate Bench.” 11. The matter be listed for final hearing before appropriate Bench.” 11. In the meanwhile, it has been stated that the respondent-mother got re-married in the year 2021. Necessarily, it would have a change of circumstances which would have an effect on the relationship between the parties. This is not in dispute as on today that the respondent-mother has re-married and out of that second marriage a child is also born and she is in her new matrimonial home. The change of circumstances certainly creates a tag of uncertainity for the child and encroaches upon welfare and which may hit a raw nerve. 12. According to the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956'), wherein Section 4 defines a “minor” who has not completed the age of eighteen years” and the “Guardian” which is defined “a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property” includes a “natural guardian” and the “Natural guardian” is referred to Section 6 of the Act, 1956. Section 8 of the Act, 1956, enumerates the power of natural guardian and Section 13 deals with “welfare” of minor child. For sake of brevity, Section 13 of the Act, 1956, is reproduced herein below : “Section 13. Welfare of minor to be paramount consideration. -(1) In the appointment of declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. (2) No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor. 13. The analysis of the provision of the Act, 1956, would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the welfare of the minor would be the paramount consideration and not the right of the parents or relatives under the statute which are enforced. 14. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Shyamrao Maroti Korwate V. Deepak Kisanrao Tekam, (2010) 10 SCC 314 has held that the welfare used in Section 13 of the Act, 1956 has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. 14. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Shyamrao Maroti Korwate V. Deepak Kisanrao Tekam, (2010) 10 SCC 314 has held that the welfare used in Section 13 of the Act, 1956 has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The Supreme Court reiterated its view in the matter of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42 . Para 17 of the said judgment is being reproduced herein below:- “17. In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, this Court held : (SCC p. 57, para 51) “51. The word 'welfare' used in Section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weight with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases.” 15. In the background of this case, when the date-wise logically facts are interpreted and translated as against the welfare, it gives rise an opinion which is contrary to general expectation. We find that the welfare factor for child will hold the sway in favour of grand parents to have the custody of the minor child. The narration of events would show that when the visitation right/custody of the child was given to the mother for two days, and thereafter on a subsequent appellate stage, the Court considering the entire facts, allowed the visitation right of the respondent-mother. She never shared any inclination for that. She was given specific right to visit that was too with the intervention of the Court but it was never followed, which raises a doubt about the responsibility of mother may be under changed circumstances. When the mother failed to follow the mandate to get the custody of child for two days and failed to appear to take custody of child before J.M.F.C., a reference was made by Court of J.M.F.C. before this Court. The learned Magistrate reiterated that the mother was not appearing to get the custody of the child for visitation right. When the mother failed to follow the mandate to get the custody of child for two days and failed to appear to take custody of child before J.M.F.C., a reference was made by Court of J.M.F.C. before this Court. The learned Magistrate reiterated that the mother was not appearing to get the custody of the child for visitation right. The Court, under those circumstances, ordered that it would be the duty of the mother to file an application to get the custody in terms of the visitation rights in between Saturday to Monday but record would show that no such application was ever filed after such order was passed by this Court on 03.02.2021. The mother appears to chose to remain in denial mode. Therefore, the emotional concept would loom into view. 16. Subsequently, new facts emerged in the relation and the respondent-mother got re-married. We do not want to make any deliberation as to explore the reason but the facts remain that the respondent-mother herself never embarked to get the custody of child, probably for the reason that she got re-married. The gulf between acquisitive desire increased and larger uses to meet the child lost in the bucket list. It was, at this stage, when the child was produced before this Court in person by the order of this Court, this Court interacted with the child and in order to make atmosphere convenient, the practicing advocate Ms. Krishna Das was asked to help us to find out and read the mind of the child. The order sheet dated 21.03.2022 would show that the child was taken up for interaction for 1 hours for a lunch and conversation with him and it was informed to us at the end of the day that the child wanted to stay with the grand parents i.e. the appellants herein. Presently, the age of the child is said to be of 9 years. After such interaction and the change of circumstances which happened, the re-marriage of the respondent-mother, and the child being aged about 9 years when expressed the desire to stay with the grand parents, We feel that the welfare of the child for his mental and physical development would be in the custody of the grand parents and child can not be thrown to an experimental dilapidated joy rides. 17. 17. Accordingly, having given all the way to the wish and will of the child, which was expressed before the Court on 21.03.2022, we are inclined to interfere with the order dated 06.09.2017 and set aside the same with a direction that the custody of the child shall remain with the grand parents-appellants herein under the background of the fact that welfare of the child would be utmost consideration. 18. With respect to the visiting right, it is directed that the child would be continued with the grand-parents when the application is filed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dabhra by respondent-Mother to get the custody of the child. The child would be handed over to the respondent-mother at 3.30 pm on Saturday evening and she will return the child to the appellants next morning at about 11.00 am before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. 19. With such direction, the appeal stands allowed to the above extent. No order as to cost.