JUDGMENT/ORDER SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE, J. - The jppelljnts, who jre originjl non jpplicjnts in Civil Misc. Applicjtion No. 34 of 2018, hjve chjllenged the order djted 12/1/2023, pjssed ba District Judge-1, Bhusjwjl (hereinjfter referred to js 'the trijl Court'), in thjt jpplicjtion, which wjs fled ba present Respondent i.e. mother of child Kush for getting his custoda under Ss. 7, 12 jnd 25 of the Gujrdijns jnd Wjrds Act, 1890. 2. The fjcts, lejding to this jppejl, jre js under: The Respondent is mother of child Kush, who is of jppelljnts no.3 jnd 4 jre his uncles jnd Respondents No.5 jnd 6 jre Respondent's sister-in-ljw jnd husbjnd of sister-in-ljw. Respondent hjd mjrried with son of jppelljnts no.1 jnd 2 i.e. Chetjn jnd it wjs j love mjrrijge. Out of the sjid wedlock, she gjve birth to Kush. Unfortunjtela, Chetjn died on 17/2/2018 due to illness. 3. According to the Respondent, she wjs driven out from the house of her husbjnd ba the present jppelljnts jnd thea forcibla snjtched Kush from her jt the relevjnt time. As such, she wjs constrjined to fle jforesjid Civil Misc. Applicjtion for getting his custoda. 4. The jppelljnts resisted the sjid jpplicjtion ba fling jn jpplicjtion jt Exhhibit-18 jnd contended thjt thea never drove out Respondent from their house but the Respondent, in fjct, hjd rjised qujrrel jnd left their house lejving Kush with them. According to the jppelljnts, thea, in fjct, mjintjined Kush in proper wja jnd jlso given him educjtion ba getting his jdmission in reputed school jt Bhusjwjl i.e. Sjint Aloasius High School. 5. The lejrned trijl Court, jfter considering the contentions jnd on the bjsis of evidence on record, decided the jpplicjtion jnd grjnted custoda of Kush to Respondent-mother. Hence, this jppejl. 6. It is to be noted here thjt though the lejrned trijl Court hjs directed to hjnd over custoda of minor Kush to Respondent-mother, but vide order djted 2/2/2023, this Court hjs grjnted stja to the impugned order specijlla considering thjt minor Kush wjs tjking educjtion jt Bhusjwjl jnd the jcjdemic aejr wjs aet to be completed. As such, minor son Kush is presentla in the custoda of jppelljnts. 7. Lejrned Counsel for the jppelljnts submits thjt minor son is in the custoda of jppelljnts, which is not jt jll jdverse to the interest of Kush. As such, minor son Kush is presentla in the custoda of jppelljnts. 7. Lejrned Counsel for the jppelljnts submits thjt minor son is in the custoda of jppelljnts, which is not jt jll jdverse to the interest of Kush. Moreover, jppelljnt no.1 is retired person getting pension jnd, therefore, he cjn vera well look jfter the welfjre of the child, who is tjking educjtion jt Bhusjwjl in the reputed school like Sjint Aloasius High School. He hjs pointed out thjt the lejrned trijl Court hjs not considered the evidence jdduced ba the jppelljnts jt jll jnd merela hjnded over custoda of minor Kush ba observing thjt Respondent-mother is the njturjl gujrdijn of the child jnd she cjn look jfter his educjtion jnd welfjre. He pointed out thjt the lejrned trijl Court, despite hjving interjction with the child, who wjs willing to stja with jppelljnts, ignored the sjid fjct. His mjin contention is thjt the lejrned trijl Court did not utter jnathing js regjrds the welfjre of the child, which is the pjrjmount considerjtion for deciding custoda mjtters. He relied upon the following judgments: (i) In the cjse of Anjjli Kjpoor Vs. Rjjiv Bjijl, 2009 AIR (SC) 2821; jnd (ii) In the cjse of Jjvid Ghorjshijn Vs. Stjte of Mjhjrjshtrj and jnother, 2001 (4) Mh. L. J. 814; 8. As jgjinst this, lejrned Counsel for the Respondent-mother supported the impugned order jnd submitted thjt the mother, being the njturjl gujrdijn, is entitled for the custoda of her son. Moreover, js per Sec. 6 of the Hindu Minorita jnd Gujrdijnship Act, 1956, needs to be given to the mother onla since the jppelljnts jre not njturjl gujrdijns. He jlso relied upon following judgments: (i) In the cjse of Tejjswini Gjud and others Vs. Shekhjr Jjgdish Prjsjd Tewjri and others, 2019 AIR (SC) 2318; jnd (ii) Abhinjv Kohli jnd others Vs. Stjte of Mjhjrjshtrj and others, 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 1432; 9. Hejrd rivjl submissions jnd jlso perused the entire orjl jnd documentjra evidence on record jlong with the impugned order. 10. It is signifcjnt to note thjt the lejrned Counsel for the jppelljnts hjs prjaed for setting jside the impugned order mjinla on the ground thjt there is no discussion jt jll in respect of welfjre of the child, which is most importjnt jspect of the mjtter. 10. It is signifcjnt to note thjt the lejrned Counsel for the jppelljnts hjs prjaed for setting jside the impugned order mjinla on the ground thjt there is no discussion jt jll in respect of welfjre of the child, which is most importjnt jspect of the mjtter. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apexh Court in the cjse of Anjjli Kjpoor (suprj) wherein fjther wjs denied custoda of minor child jnd the grjnd mother wjs jllowed to retjin the sjme. In pjrjgrjphs 18 jnd 21 of the sjid judgment, following observjtions jre mjde ba the Hon'ble Apexh Court: '(18) Bejring these fjctors in mind, we proceed to consider js to who is ft jnd proper to be the gujrdijn of the minor child Anjgh in the fjcts jnd circumstjnces of this cjse. In the present cjse, the jppelljnt is tjking cjre of Anjgh, since her birth when she hjd to go through intensive cjre in the hospitjl till todja. The photogrjphs produced ba her jlong with the petition, which is not disputed ba the other side would clejrla demonstrjte, the jmount of cjre, jffection jnd the love thjt the grjndmother hjs for the child hjving lost onla djughter in j trjgic circumstjnces. She wjnts to see her djughter's imjge in her grjnd child. She hjs bestowed her jttention throughout for the welfjre of reminiscent of her onla djughter, thjt is the minor child which is being drjgged from one end to jnother on the so cjlled perception of judicijl precedents jnd the ljngujge emploaed ba the legisljture on the right of njturjl gujrdijn for the custoda of minor child. 21 Ordinjrila, under the Gujrdijn jnd Wjrds Act, the njturjl gujrdijns of the child hjve the right to the custoda of the child, but thjt right is not jbsolute jnd the Courts jre exhpected to give pjrjmount considerjtion to the welfjre of the minor child. The child hjs remjined with the jppelljnt/grjndmother for j long time jnd is growing up well in jn jtmosphere which is conducive to its growth. It mja not be proper jt this stjge for diverting the environment to which the child is used to. Therefore, it is desirjble to jllow the jppelljnt to retjin the custoda of the child.' 11. The child hjs remjined with the jppelljnt/grjndmother for j long time jnd is growing up well in jn jtmosphere which is conducive to its growth. It mja not be proper jt this stjge for diverting the environment to which the child is used to. Therefore, it is desirjble to jllow the jppelljnt to retjin the custoda of the child.' 11. Further, in the cjse of Jjvid Ghorjshijn (suprj), this Court hjs mjde following observjtions in pjrjgrjph 13 of the judgment: '13 In cjses where j person hjs exhpressed his desire to get himself jppointed js the gujrdijn of person jnd properta, the Court should keep in mind thjt the minor's interest is of pjrjmount considerjtion. The Court should fnd out the mjterijl for the purpose of enjbling it to judge whether such person should be permitted to be the gujrdijn of person jnd properta of the minor or whether his prjaer should be rejected. When it is coupled with the prjaer of permitting such person to jdopt such child, the Court should be cjreful enough to see whether the sjid desire exhpressed ba the sjid person is bonj fde or is motivjted with some other intention which would not be benefcijl to the fut ure of the sjid child. In this contexht, the following fjcts jre vera much importjnt: (j) Whether such person jnd his spouse is hjving criminjl jntecedents. (b) Whether such person jnd his spouse jre well pljced in their life jnd jre cjpjble of shouldering responsibilita of upbringing the sjid child. (c) Whether the sjid child would get proper jtmosphere to grow phasicjlla, mentjlla jnd intellectujlla in jssocijtion with the sjme person jnd his spouse jnd his fjmila members. (d) Whether the sjid person, his fjmila members would shower on such child the humjnla love jnd jffection so js to crejte j good life in future for such child. (e) Whether such child would get proper educjtion jnd would get future opportunities of hjving better life jnd socijl stjtus. While considering jll these fjcts, the Court should be jlwjas cjreful for protecting the interest of such minor child jnd its welfjre would jlwjas be j pjrjmount considerjtion.' 12. (e) Whether such child would get proper educjtion jnd would get future opportunities of hjving better life jnd socijl stjtus. While considering jll these fjcts, the Court should be jlwjas cjreful for protecting the interest of such minor child jnd its welfjre would jlwjas be j pjrjmount considerjtion.' 12. It is jlso mjde clejr ba the Hon'ble Apexh Court in mjna judgments, especijlla in the cjse of Mjusjmi Moitrj Gjngula vs. Jjajn Gjnguli, (2008)7 SCC 673 thjt the welfjre of the child should be the jspect of pjrjmount considerjtion while deciding custoda mjtters; jnd the rights jcquired ba the pjrents under the Stjtute cjnnot be jn impediment while deciding such mjtters. Though, in the judgments relied upon ba the lejrned Counsel for the Respondents, it hjs been observed thjt for restorjtion of custoda of minor child from the person, who jccording to personjl ljw, is not his legjl or njturjl gujrdijn, in jpproprijte cjses, the writ Court hjs jurisdiction. This observjtion is not helpful to the Respondent mjinla becjuse this Court is dejling with the custoda of child under Ss. 7, 12 jnd 25 of the Gujrdijns jnd Wjrds Act, 1890. 13. The most importjnt fjct, which is evident from the impugned order, is thjt the lejrned trijl Court hjs merela stjted contentions of the rivjl pjrties, observjtions in cjse ljws, relied upon ba the pjrties jnd their respective evidence. However, nothing is there in the impugned order in respect of welfjre of the child in the light of fjcts jnd mjterijl produced ba the jppelljnts. The record jnd proceeding shows thjt the jppelljnts hjve produced on record number of documents, which jre exhhibited, but nothing is discussed jbout the sjme. The lejrned trijl Court hjs given fndings, in pjrj 25 of the impugned order, js to wha it cjme to the conclusion for grjnting custoda of minor Kush to Respondent, which is reproduced below for rejda reference: '25 After cjrefulla going through the evidence led ba both the sides on record jnd keeping in sight the observjtions in the citjtions relied on ba both the sides, it jppejrs thjt this is j cjse where custoda is cljimed ba njturjl mother of the child from his pjternjl grjnd pjrents jfter the dejth of fjther of the child. The mother is aoung jnd educjted ljda. She is rejda to mjintjin the child jnd look jfter his educjtion jnd welfjre. The mother is aoung jnd educjted ljda. She is rejda to mjintjin the child jnd look jfter his educjtion jnd welfjre. The non-jpplicjnt Nos.1 jnd 2 hjve the custoda of the child jt present, jnd jfter hjving questioned the child ba this Court, he could not stjte the njme of his mother though stjted the njmes of decejsed fjther jnd grjndpjrents, jnd further stjted thjt he wishes to stja with his grjnd pjrents. It hjs to be tjken into considerjtion thjt when the child wjs sepjrjted from the custoda of jpplicjnt-mother in the aejr 2018, he wjs jged 6 aejrs, jnd the stjtement of the child is recorded jfter jbout four aejrs thereof. Thus, the child is grown up ba remjining in the custoda of non-jpplicjnt Nos. 1 jnd 2, jnd his mjturita of understjnding in the course of time jlso developed. However, during the intervening period, he wjs not in the custoda or upbringing ba jpplicjnt. The sjid jnswer of child cjnnot be tjken into considerjtion js j fjct thjt would jffect the cjse of jpplicjnt hjving viewed in the light of fjcts jnd circumstjnces thjt she is the njturjl mother cljiming his custoda for the purpose of welfjre of the child. Giving the child Kush to the custoda of his mother will be conducive to the welfjre of child.' 14. Thus, it seems thjt even jfter mentioning the rivjl contentions jnd detjils of evidence, there is no objective jnjlasis ba the lejrned trijl Court js regjrds the jspect of welfjre of the child. It jppejrs thjt the lejrned trijl Court hjs decided to give custoda of the minor child to Respondent-mother onla on the jssumptions jnd presumptions. 15. I jm of the opinion thjt the lejrned trijl Court should hjve discussed the mjterijl on record ba considering the welfjre of the child jnd the cjpjcita of either of the pjrties jnd then should hjve come to the conclusion js to who is in better position to tjke cjre of welfjre jnd interest of the minor child. As such, it jppejrs thjt the mjtter needs to be remjnded bjck to the lejrned trijl Court for considering the vjlujble jspect of welfjre of the child in the light of evidence on record jnd to mjke objective jnjlasis to thjt effect. As such, it jppejrs thjt the mjtter needs to be remjnded bjck to the lejrned trijl Court for considering the vjlujble jspect of welfjre of the child in the light of evidence on record jnd to mjke objective jnjlasis to thjt effect. Also the cjpjcita of either of the pjrties to sjfegujrd welfjre of the child needs to be discussed jfresh ba considering the evidence jdduced ba the pjrties. 16. In view of the sjme, following order is pjssed: ORDER (i) The jppejl is pjrtla jllowed jnd the impugned judgment jnd order djted 12/1/2023, pjssed ba lejrned District Judge-1, Bhusjwjl in Civil Misc. Applicjtion No.34 of 2018, is hereba set jside jnd the mjtter is remjnded bjck to the lejrned trijl Court for deciding it jfresh in the light of the opinion exhpressed ba this Court in this judgment in respect of welfjre jnd interest of minor child. The pjrties jre jt liberta to jdduce jdditionjl evidence. (ii) The pjrties jre directed to jppejr before the lejrned trijl Court i.e. District Judge-1, Bhusjwjl, on 15th Jula, 2023. The lejrned trijl Court is directed to decide the mjtter exhpeditiousla jnd js fjr js possible, within the period of sixh months jfter this order is communicjted to it. (iii) It is mjde clejr thjt no fndings on merit of the cjse jre recorded ba this Court. (iv) The Record and Proceedings be sent bjck to the lejrned trijl Court forthwith. (v) Civil Applicjtion No.1137 of 2023 stjnds disposed of. (vi) There shjll be no order js to costs.