JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in the Family Court Appeal No. 37 of 2022 is to the order, dated 02.05.2022, in F.C.O.P. No. 156 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short ‘the learned Judge, Family Court’) where under the learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the Petition filed by the petitioner (husband) under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the FC Act’) seeking custody of the minor child by name Likith Sri Sai @ Sri Sreeyansh. 2. Challenge in the Civil Revision Petition No. 1842 of 2022 is to the order, dated 12.08.2022, in I.A. No. 642 of 2022 in G.O.P. No. 147 of 2017 where under the learned Judge, Family Court modified the orders passed in G.O.P. No. 147 of 2017, dated 12.01.2019. 3. The parties to this Family Court Appeal and Civil Revision Petition will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in the respective cases. 4. The appellant (husband) herein is the petitioner in F.C.O.P. No. 156 of 2019, who filed the same under Section 7 of the FC Act seeking custody of the minor child by name Likith Sri Sai @ Sri Sreeyansh. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as set out in FCOP No. 156 of 2019 is that he is the legally wedded husband of the first respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 08.05.2014 at Tirupati as per the Hindu rites and customs. Later, there arose some matrimonial disputes between the couple which resulted into filing of several cases before various Courts at Tirupati. Presently, they are residing separately. As the petitioner is very much interested to lead a happy marital life with his wife, he filed a Petition against his wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights in FCOP No. 15 of 2016 before the trial Court. At the instance of second and third respondents, who are her parents, she filed a Petition FCOP No. 114 of 2016 before the trial Court seeking divorce. The learned Judge, Family Court disposed of both the Petitions vide common order, dated 09.09.2017, wherein the FCOP No. 15 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed and FCOP No. 114 of 2016 for divorce was dismissed. The learned Judge, Family Court disposed of both the Petitions vide common order, dated 09.09.2017, wherein the FCOP No. 15 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed and FCOP No. 114 of 2016 for divorce was dismissed. In I.A. No. 1503 of 2016 in FCOP No. 15 of 2016 on 08.07.2016 visitation rights were awarded to the petitioner to visit his minor child. Aggrieved by granting visitation rights to the petitioner herein, the first respondent preferred an Appeal in FCA No. 409 of 2017 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which is pending. The petitioner herein also filed GOP No. 147 of 2017 before the trial Court to enforce his visiting rights and it was allowed on 12.01.2019 directing the respondent (wife) to handover the minor child to the petitioner on every Saturday to spend time with him from 10:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. To avoid implementation of the said judgment, respondent (wife) forcibly took away the minor child to an un-disclosed location. Petitioner, on due enquiry, learnt that his minor child is not even attending the school and the respondents are trying to inflict harm to him and to harass him. The respondents are holding his minor child to pressurize the petitioner to consent for divorce. These acts of the respondents are detrimental to the interest of the minor child. The petitioner has apprehension for the safety, welfare and well being of his minor child. The petitioner also made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati on 28.01.2019 but no action was taken. The minor child is deprived of the fatherly affection of the petitioner. First respondent is trying to go abroad leaving the minor child with her parents i.e. second and third respondents. It is not in the best interest of the minor child to be to be in the custody of first respondent and her parents. In fact, he filed GOP No. 147 of 2017 to seek visitation rights of minor child as he did not want to take away the child from the care and custody of first respondent as the child was of a tender age. Because now the first respondent left the minor child in the custody of second and third respondents, the petitioner is now taking appropriate steps to get him into his sole custody. Hence the Petition. 5. Because now the first respondent left the minor child in the custody of second and third respondents, the petitioner is now taking appropriate steps to get him into his sole custody. Hence the Petition. 5. The first respondent through the third respondent got filed a counter denying the case of the petitioner and the relevant facts insofar as opposing the prayer of the petitioner in FCOP No. 156 of 2019 as per the counter are that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 08.05.2014 at Sri Sai Nirmala Ramaiah Kalyanamantapam, Ramanujam Circle, Tirupati. Parents of the first respondent complied the demand of the petitioner to pay the dowry. She joined with the petitioner at matrimonial home at Tirupati. The marriage was duly consummated and out of their wedlock, a male child was born to them, who is now in the care and custody of her. Even after joining into the matrimonial home of the petitioner, the first respondent complied the demands of the petitioner and his parents with regard to additional dowry and other launchanams. Initially, the petitioner left the first respondent at Tirupati while he was going to Hyderabad to attend his job. In fact, first respondent had intention to accompany her husband to Hyderabad. Ultimately, due to negotiations, petitioner took her to Hyderabad on 30.05.2014 with several conditions to get household articles which was complied by her parents. Even after that, the first respondent was subjected to cruelty while she was at Hyderabad along with the petitioner. She conceived and in her 5th month pregnancy, at the demands made by the petitioner and his parents, her parents performed the Srimantham on 25.01.2015 in a grand manner. Thereafter, parents of the first respondent took her to Tirupati where she gave birth to a male child on 24.02.2015. Even after that the petitioner and his parents demanded additional dowry of Rs.30,00,000/-. On 29.04.2015, the first respondent and her child went to the matrimonial home at Hyderabad where the petitioner did not allow them into the house and as there was no other go, first respondent and her parents returned to Tirupati. Since then, she and her minor child are staying with her parents. On 29.04.2015, the first respondent and her child went to the matrimonial home at Hyderabad where the petitioner did not allow them into the house and as there was no other go, first respondent and her parents returned to Tirupati. Since then, she and her minor child are staying with her parents. Due to unbearable harassment made by the petitioner and his parents, the respondent filed a private complaint before learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati which resulted into registration of Crime No. 75 of 2015 against the petitioner and his parents for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The petitioner did not take any care towards the first respondent or their minor child. The petitioner is a Senior Software Consultant in CGI Company at Hyderabad, earning Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. After coming to know about registration of FIR against them, the petitioner filed FCOP No. 15 of 2016 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondents to avoid torture in the hands of the petitioner also filed a Domestic Violence Case. The first respondent to stand on her feet got admission in Master in Business Administration at Canada and she left to Canada for her education. Since from the birth of child, he has been with the first respondent and under the care and custody of her parents. Petitioner did not look after the child. The child was born on 24.02.2015 at Tirupati. Parents of the first respondent accompanied her and the child to Hyderabad on 29.04.2015 but the petitioner did not allow them into the house and thrown away the mother and the child. On the same day, they returned to Tirupati. Petitioner had no nexus with the child. The child developed love and affection towards parents of the first respondent. The Court granted visitation rights to the petitioner in GOP No. 147 of 2017 but he never tried to meet the child basing on the said orders. Petitioner commenced fresh litigation by filing petitions for Habeas Corpus in Writ Petition No. 10780 of 2019, which was dismissed on 27.08.2019 and in Writ Petition No. 16042 of 2019, there was an order that all the expenses of the child including school fee etc. shall be borne by the petitioner (father) and mother jointly. Petitioner did not comply the said order. shall be borne by the petitioner (father) and mother jointly. Petitioner did not comply the said order. The child is not interested to see the face of the petitioner who is unaware that he is his father. Hence, the Petition is to be dismissed. 6. During the course of trial on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati in FCOP No. 156 of 2019, PWs.1 to PW-4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, first respondent herself examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked. 7. The learned Judge, Family Court on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the FCOP No. 156 of 2019 on 02.05.2022. 8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful petitioner therein filed the present Family Court Appeal No. 37 of 2022. 9. Coming to the Civil Revision Petition No. 1842 of 2022, the facts leading to filing of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows: The petitioner herein is no other than the petitioner (husband) in GOP No. 147 of 2017 before the trial Court. The learned Judge, Family Court passed an order in GOP No. 147 of 2017 on 12.01.2019 by holding that petitioner and his parents are permitted to see the minor child Likith Sri Sai on every Saturday and spend time with him from 10:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. and that the respondent (wife) is directed to handover the minor child to the petitioner either at her residence or at Family Court, Tirupati at 10:00 a.m. on every Saturday and that the petitioner (husband) shall return the child to the respondent (wife) at 06:00 p.m. on the same day in the Court premises or at her house. As against the said order and expressing some difficulty in implementation of the said order, the respondent (wife) in the capacity of the petitioner filed I.A. No. 642 of 2022 in GOP No. 147 of 2017 so as to modify the said order and the learned Judge, Family Court by virtue of the order, dated 12.08.2022, modified the order by directing that the respondent (father) and his parents shall be allowed to spend time with minor child on first and third Sunday of every month in the house of the petitioner (wife) situated at Tirupati and there is no need to bring the child to the Family Court on every Saturday and the child can be taken out by the father if the child is readily willing otherwise, the father has to spend time in the house of the wife at Tirupati and that paternal grand parents are also allowed to see the child and spend time with the child on first and third Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. in the residence of child’s mother at Tirupati. 10. Felt aggrieved of the said order in IA No. 642 of 2022 in GOP No. 147 of 2017, dated 12.08.2022, the petitioner (husband) filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 11. Now in deciding this Family Court Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition, as above, the points that emerge for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the best interest and welfare of the minor child would be served in the custody of the petitioner/appellant (husband) or in the custody of the first respondent (wife)? (2) Whether the order, dated 12.08.2022, in IA No. 642 of 2022 in GOP No. 147 of 2017 is legally sustainable under law and facts? (3) To what relief? POINT Nos. 1 to 3: 12. In FCOP No. 156 of 2019, PW-1 was no other than the petitioner, who got filed his chief-examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with the petition averments. Through his examination Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. Ex.A-1 is the copy of common order, dated 09.09.2017, passed in FCOP Nos.15 and 114 of 2016. Ex.A-2 is the copy of order in GOP No. 147 of 2017, dated 12.01.2019. Ex.A-3 is the copy of representation, dated 28.01.2019, given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati. Ex.A-4 is the Birth certificate of the minor child. Ex.A-1 is the copy of common order, dated 09.09.2017, passed in FCOP Nos.15 and 114 of 2016. Ex.A-2 is the copy of order in GOP No. 147 of 2017, dated 12.01.2019. Ex.A-3 is the copy of representation, dated 28.01.2019, given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati. Ex.A-4 is the Birth certificate of the minor child. Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of the order in WP No. 16042 of 2019. Ex.A-6 is bunch of 23 photoes with CD. Ex.A-7 is the attested copy application along with enclosures relating to change of name of minor child obtained from Tirupati Municipal Corporation. Ex.A-8 is the birth certificate of Nandi Likith Sri Sai. Ex.A-9 is the photos taken at Mediation Center in FCOP No. 15 of 2016. 13. He got filed the chief-examination affidavit of PW-2, a third party and the chief-examination affidavit of third party in substance is that though the petitioner had every intention to lead happy marital life with his wife but she had no regard to do so and that the petitioner had any amount of affection towards his minor child. Further, the petitioner filed the chief-examination affidavit of PW-3, who is his father, in support of his case. Further, the petitioner got filed the chief-examination affidavit of PW-4, who is a third party, in support of his case. 14. RW-1 before the trial Court was no other than the wife of the petitioner. Her chief-examination affidavit was in support of her case. 15. Insofar as FCA No. 37 of 2022 is concerned, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant (husband), would vehemently contend that the petitioner is no other than the natural guardian of the minor child. As of now, the minor child is aged about 8 years. The first respondent leaving the fate of the minor child to her parents, left to Canada in pursuit of her studies. The various allegations of cruelty raised by the first respondent against the petitioner were negatived as the divorce petition filed by the first respondent in FCOP No. 114 of 2016 was dismissed. On the other hand, the learned Judge, Family Court found favour with the case of petitioner and granted an order for restitution of conjugal rights. The various allegations of cruelty raised by the first respondent against the petitioner were negatived as the divorce petition filed by the first respondent in FCOP No. 114 of 2016 was dismissed. On the other hand, the learned Judge, Family Court found favour with the case of petitioner and granted an order for restitution of conjugal rights. So, whatever the allegations in FCOP No. 114 of 2016 impugning the conduct of the petitioner proved to be incorrect. So, the prayer of the first respondent to grant a decree of divorce was dismissed and the prayer of the petitioner to grant restitution of conjugal rights was duly considered by the learned Judge, Family Court. Even then the first respondent (wife) did not care to implement the order of the learned Judge, Family Court in FCOP No. 15 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is altogether a different aspect that an Appeal is pending against the common order of the Judge, Family Court in FCOP Nos. 15 and 114 of 2016. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that from the beginning the respondents had an inclination to create a gap between the petitioner and his minor child. The intention of the first respondent and her parents is to compel the petitioner to come forward for a decree of divorce with consent. Because the petitioner is fond of her minor child and to compel the petitioner to come forward for a divorce, the respondents are causing discomfort to the minor child who is staying with them. The learned Judge, Family Court granted visitation rights to the petitioner in GOP No. 147 of 2017. Even to deprive the petitioner with such facility, the petitioner (wife) filed IA No. 642 of 2022 in GOP No. 147 of 2017 and the learned Judge, Family Court modified the order in GOP No. 147 of 2017, which is now the subject matter of challenge in the Civil Revision Petition No. 1842 of 2022. Learned Senior Counsel would strenuously contend that the interest and welfare of the child is of paramount consideration while dealing with the custody of the minor child. If really, the first respondent had any interest to look after the welfare and interest of the minor child, she would not have left the child to his fate in the custody of her old aged parents. If really, the first respondent had any interest to look after the welfare and interest of the minor child, she would not have left the child to his fate in the custody of her old aged parents. Learned Senior Counsel would rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 . He would submit that the facts in the above said case are similar to the present case on hand. The respondents cannot perpetuate custody of the minor child with them on the ground that from the beginning the child is in their custody. The petitioner has every right to show his natural love and affection as father towards the minor child. Though the interest of the minor child is paramount consideration but the evidence on record would prove the fact that the petitioner has every intention to take care of the welfare of the mind child and the best interest of the child would be served in the custody of the petitioner. Petitioner is financially well to take care of the wellbeing of his minor child. The petitioner has his parents who are ready to assist the petitioner to take care of the welfare of the minor. The conduct of first respondent is such that even she went to the extent of changing the name of minor child without his consent so as to keep the child from the reach of the petitioner. The first respondent thought of to change the name of the minor child and this itself is sufficient to say that it is not in the best interest of the child to allow him to be in the custody of respondents. With the above said contention, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Appeal is liable to be allowed. 16. Insofar as the Civil Revision Petition is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the learned Judge, Family Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on him while dealing with an application to modify the order. The learned Judge did not take into consideration the fact that the present petitioner is always ready to take care of the welfare of the minor child and, without proper reasons, the learned Judge modified the order, dated 12.01.2019, in GOP No. 147 of 2017 as such the Civil Revision Petition is also liable to be allowed. The learned Judge did not take into consideration the fact that the present petitioner is always ready to take care of the welfare of the minor child and, without proper reasons, the learned Judge modified the order, dated 12.01.2019, in GOP No. 147 of 2017 as such the Civil Revision Petition is also liable to be allowed. He would contend that passing appropriate orders in the Civil Revision Petition would arise depending upon the orders passed in the Family Court Appeal. 17. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the respondent (wife), would strenuously contend that the minor child was born on 24.02.2015. After that on 29.04.2015 the first respondent with minor child along with her parents tried to join in the matrimonial home of the petitioner at Hyderabad but she was not allowed to join. There was no dispute that on that particular day the first respondent along with her kid returned to Tirupati. So, absolutely, the petitioner had no occasion, whatsoever, to interact with the child and to show his love and affection. He never evinced any interest to take care of the minor child. Several times during the course of visitation rights also the petitioner created havoc in the mind of the minor child. The parents of the first respondent i.e. the second and third respondents are highly educated. They are in good financial condition. The first respondent is in better financial condition than the petitioner. On account of various circumstances and to stand on her own legs, she was compelled to go abroad for pursuing higher studies, which does not mean that she left the minor child to his fate in the hands of second and third respondents. Second and third respondents are no other than the affectionate parents of first respondent, who are always ready to take care of the minor child. They are providing good education to the minor child at their place. On the other hand, it is the petitioner who failed to comply the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16042 of 2019, when this Court directed the petitioner and the first respondent to share the educational expenditure at 50:50 ratio. It shows the conduct of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is the petitioner who failed to comply the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16042 of 2019, when this Court directed the petitioner and the first respondent to share the educational expenditure at 50:50 ratio. It shows the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner, who was not able to comply the orders of this Court so as to reimburse the educational expenditure of the minor child, is now canvassing that he is ready to take care of the welfare of the child. The evidence of PW-1 in cross-examination means that he has no basis to suspect that the respondents are causing harm to the minor child. The learned Judge, Family Court on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the claim of the petitioner. He would contend that in granting custody of the minor child, the paramount consideration to be seen is best interest and welfare of the minor child. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw and another, (1987) 1 SCC 42 , Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu and another, (1984) 3 SCC 698 , Githa Hariharan and another v. Reserve Bank of India and another, (1999) 2 SCC 228 , Chandrakala Menon and another v. Vipin Menon (Capt) and another, (1993) 2 SCC 6 and Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42 . 18. The admitted facts are that the appellant is the husband of the first respondent and during their wedlock they were blessed with a male child. On account of estrangement between the couple, there is no dispute further that the petitioner filed FCOP No. 15 of 2016 for restitution of conjugal rights and the first respondent filed FCOP No. 114 of 2016 for decree of divorce and both were disposed of by way of common order by allowing FCOP No. 15 of 2016 and dismissing FCOP No. 114 of 2016. There is no dispute that, as against the said common order, there is an Appeal filed by the first respondent pending. The petitioner and first respondent were blessed with a male child by name Nandi Likith Sri Sai on 24.02.2015 at Tirupati. The delivery was performed by the parents of the first respondent i.e. second and third respondents at Tirupati. There is no dispute that, as against the said common order, there is an Appeal filed by the first respondent pending. The petitioner and first respondent were blessed with a male child by name Nandi Likith Sri Sai on 24.02.2015 at Tirupati. The delivery was performed by the parents of the first respondent i.e. second and third respondents at Tirupati. There was also no dispute as evident from the pleadings and the evidence available on record that the first respondent along with the child went to Hyderabad to join with the matrimonial home on 29.04.2015 but they have returned on account of various reasons. There was also no dispute that since 29.04.2015 the petitioner and the first respondent are residing separately. Parents of the first respondent i.e. second and third respondents were originally residents of Tirupati. The evidence on record reveals that they are providing education to the minor child by residing at a rented house at Tumukur Taluka, Karnataka. The parties are governed by Hindu Law. The date of common order in FCOP Nos. 15 and 114 of 2016 was passed on 09.09.2017. 19. After getting the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner appears to have filed several Writ Petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In Writ Petition No. 16042 of 2019, there was an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Writ Petition No. 10780 of 2019, filed for Hapeas Corpus, was dismissed. According to the order in W.P. No. 16042 of 2019, which was marked as Ex.A-5 before the trial Court, a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said Writ Petition gave a direction that studies of the child in Ananyaa International School shall continue and all the expenses of the child, including the school fee shall be borne by the petitioner (father) and mother jointly. The said order in WP No. 16042 of 2019 was dated 11.11.2019. 20. The petitioner during the course of cross-examination before the learned Judge, Family Court on 05.02.2021 admitted that the High Court directed him in a Writ Petition to pay 50% of the fee of the child but he did not pay the same because the School authorities did not allow him to do so. He admitted that by that time the respondent (wife) paid the total fee. He admitted that by that time the respondent (wife) paid the total fee. As evident from Ex.A-5 there was a clear direction that the School authorities shall be made aware of the order. So, when there was an order, dated 11.11.2019, in WP No. 16042 of 2019 even by 05.02.2021 the petitioner could not reimburse 50% of the school fee of his child. The reason set forth by the petitioner that the school authorities did not allow him to pay the school fee is not convincing. He had knowledge of the order of the High Court under Ex.A-5. If really, the School authorities did not allow him to pay the school fee, he would not have kept quiet without bringing the said fact to the notice of the High Court. From this, it can be safely inferred that for the reasons best known to him, he did not comply the order. 21. When the child was born on 24.02.2015, the petitioner and the first respondent are residing separately from 29.04.2015. There was an admission from PW-1 during the course of his cross-examination that from the age of 3rd month till date i.e. 13.12.2021 the minor child was in the custody of the respondents and they performed all the necessary customary functions to the child. So, absolutely, he has no occasion to mingle with the minor child after first respondent gave birth to the child. There is no dispute that now the first respondent is in Canada and her parents i.e. second and third respondents are looking after the welfare and well being of the child. There was also an admission from PW-1 during the cross-examination that after his wife returned from Hyderabad along with the child they were under the custody of his in-laws so far. He admitted in cross-examination further that his child is residing at his in-laws house and no harm was happened to his child. 22. The basis for filing of the FCOP No. 156 of 2019 i.e. for child custody by the petitioner as per the pleadings was that the respondents took the child to an un-disclosed place and there is likelihood of harm to the child and that the petitioner has every apprehension about the safety of the child. This apprehension proved to be in-correct by virtue of his admissions in cross-examination. This apprehension proved to be in-correct by virtue of his admissions in cross-examination. So, the fact remained is that right from the date of birth of the child, the child has been in the custody of the first respondent and after she left to Canada, she is taking care of the child through her parents. It is altogether a different aspect that some visiting rights were created in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the order in WP No. 16042 of 2019, dated 11.11.209, temporarily by giving option to the parties to approach the Family Court for appropriate reliefs including seeking the custody of the child. 23. To elicit the sentiment and wish of the child, we orally interacted with the child in the Chambers on 21.09.2023. According to the evidence available on record, the date of birth of the minor child was on 24.02.2015. So, the child as of now is more than 8 years old. When we interacted with the child, it appears that he is capable of understanding the rationale of our questions and when we asked him as to whether he would like to stay with his grandparents, he made a positive answer that his mother is taking care of him through his grandparents and used to visit him occasionally and her grandparents are very affectionate towards him and since attainment of cognitive ability he has no occasion to mingle with his father and as such he would like to be with the second and third respondents and he would like to be with his mother. When we interacted with him as to why he is not preferring the company of his father, he made an answer that it is not possible for him to mingle with his father with whom he had no acquaintance properly. So, during our interaction with the child, the child preferred to be in the company of his grandparents and his mother. 24. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention here about the legal principles governing the custody of the minor child. So, during our interaction with the child, the child preferred to be in the company of his grandparents and his mother. 24. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention here about the legal principles governing the custody of the minor child. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vivek Singh (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider its earlier decision in Gourav Nagpal (supra), where the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the arguments of the appellant that child is living since long with the father. The Hon’ble Apex Court made a finding that by flouting various orders leading even to initiation of contempt proceedings, appellant has managed to keep the custody of the child as such he cannot be a beneficiary of his own wrongs. 25. In our considered view, the factual matrix in the above said case altogether stands on a different footing. Here it is not that there was any wrongful act on the part of the respondents in keeping the custody of the minor child with them. On the other hand, the petitioner and the first respondent are residing separately from 29.04.2015. Though the first respondent with the minor child made an attempt to join with the matrimonial home of the petitioner at Hyderabad on 29.04.2015, it cannot be materialized as such she returned to Tirupati. Later, the petitioner had no occasion, whatsoever, to make a visit to the child till he got an order in WP No. 16042 of 2019 for visitation rights. It cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the respondents perpetuated the custody of the minor child by any wrongful acts. 26. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’) runs as follows: “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. (b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi).” 27. As seen from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No. 8 held as follows: “8. Whenever a question arises before a court pertaining to the custody of a minor child, the matter is to be decided not on considerations of the legal rights of parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor.” 28. As seen from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu (supra), it was held as follows: “Moreover, Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 cannot supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.” 29. In Githa Hariharan and another (supra), cited by learned counsel for the appellant, the validity of Section 6 of the Act of 1956 was under challenge, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No. 10 defined the word ‘after’ as follows: “10...........We are of the view that Section 6(a) (supra) is capable of such construction as would retain it within the constitutional limits. The word “after” need not necessarily mean “after the lifetime.” In the context in which it appears in Section 6(a) (supra), it means “in the absence of” the word “absence” therein referring to the father’s absence from the care of the minor’s property or person for any reason whatever.” 30. Coming to the present case on hand, as this Court already pointed out, the paramount consideration while dealing with the custody of the minor child is the best interest and his welfare. 31. Coming to the present case on hand, as this Court already pointed out, the paramount consideration while dealing with the custody of the minor child is the best interest and his welfare. 31. Turning to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrakala Menon and another (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows at Para No. 7: “7................The question regarding the custody of a minor child cannot be decided on the basis of the legal rights of the parties. The custody of a child has to be decided on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor.......” 32. From the conspectus of legal principles what emerges is that while dealing with the custody of the minor child, the Court has to take into consideration the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the minor child. 33. It is also the contention of learned Senior Counsel that the first respondent made every effort to change the name of the child and it shows the conduct, and custody of the child with second and third respondents is not for the well being of the child. It is very difficult to accept such a contention. RW-1 during cross-examination deposed that she made an application in the Municipal Corporation for change of the name of the child as Nandi Sriyansh from Nandi Likith Sri Sai. Witness volunteers that, as per the astrology, she made an attempt to change the name of the child. It is to be noted that right from the birth of the child on 24.02.2015 till 29.04.2015, on which date both the petitioner and first respondent started residing separately, there was no occasion for the petitioner to mingle with the minor child and first respondent. Absolutely, there was no pleading from the part of the petitioner that in consultation with him, the first respondent named the child as Nandi Likith Sri Sai. Having looked into the cross-examination part of RW-1, it is very difficult to say that with any deliberate intention the first respondent made an attempt to change the name of the child. Absolutely, there was no pleading from the part of the petitioner that in consultation with him, the first respondent named the child as Nandi Likith Sri Sai. Having looked into the cross-examination part of RW-1, it is very difficult to say that with any deliberate intention the first respondent made an attempt to change the name of the child. Considering the evidence in FCOP No. 156 of 2019 with settled legal principles, we are of the considered view that the best interest of the child would be served only if he is in the custody of respondents 1 to 3 because the child even had no proper acquaintance with the petitioner since the date of his birth. Allowing him to be in the custody of the petitioner would cause any amount of mental disturbance to the child and it is not at all going to be in the best interest and welfare of the minor child. Having considered the above, we are of the considered view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Judge, Family Court in FCOP No. 156 of 2019, dated 02.05.2022. 34. Coming to the Civil Revision Petition, there is no dispute that the present petitioner sought for visiting rights of the minor child in GOP No. 147 of 2017. The learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati by virtue of the order, dated 12.01.2019, directed that the petitioner and his parents are permitted to see the minor child on every Saturday and spend time with him from 10:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. and the first respondent was also directed to handover the minor child to the petitioner either at her residence or at Family Court, Tirupati at 10:00 a.m. on every Sunday and that the petitioner (husband) shall return the child to the respondent (wife) at 06:00 p.m. on the same day in the Court premises or at her house. 35. The respondent (wife) filed I.A. No. 642 of 2022 in GOP No. 147 of 2017 so as to modify the said order, dated 12.01.2019, and to allow her husband to have the visitation rights at the place where presently the child is residing with second and third respondents i.e. at Sri Muni Anjaneya Buildings, Opposite Bharat Petrol Bunk, Kunigal Road, Gulur, Tumkur, Karnataka. The learned Judge, Family Court passed an order in IA No. 642 of 2022 on 12.08.2022 directing that the petitioner herein and his parents shall be allowed to spend time with the minor child on every first and third Sunday of the month in the house of the first respondent (wife) at Tirupati and that there was no necessity to bring the child to the Family Court on every Saturday and further that the child can be taken out by the father if the child is readily willing otherwise, the petitioner (father) has to spend time with the petitioner and the grandparents are also at liberty to see the child and spend time with him on every first and third Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. 36. So, the learned Judge, Family Court only deleted the earlier condition that the child can be handed over to the petitioner at Family Court, Tirupati. The learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati recorded valid reasons for want of facilities at Family Court to keep the child. The learned Judge, Family Court did not consider the request of the petitioner (wife) to allow visitation rights at a particular place at Karnataka. 37. Having regard to the above, we do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order in I.A. No. 642 of 2022 in GOP No. 147 of 2017, dated 12.08.2020. 38. In the result both the Family Court Appeal No. 37 of 2022 and Civil Revision Petition No. 1842 of 2022 are dismissed. No order as to costs. 39. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.