JUDGMENT : (Praveer Bhatnagar, J.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Family Court, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court' for short) whereby, the application of the respondent paternal grandfather filed under sections 6 and 25 of the Guardians And Wards Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short) was allowed and, the Court directed the appellant mother to hand over the custody of Master X to the respondent and further authorised the limited visiting rights to the appellant. 2. Admittedly, minor X is the appellant's son and paternal grandson of the respondent (father-in-law of the appellant). 3. The operative part of the order reads as follows:- ^^16½ mijksDr laiw.kZ foospu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ Hkhde flag dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g izkFkZuk i=] vo;Ld ckyd fd'ku iq= Lo-usehpan dh vfHkj{kk ds lanHkZ esa fuEu fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS %& 1-izkFkhZ Hkhde flag dks vius iq= usehpan o lqeu ds uqRQs ls mRiUu larku ukckfyx fd'ku iq= Lo-usehpan dh mfpr ns[kHkky] dY;k.k ,oa ykyu&ikyu gsrq fof/kd laj{kd fu;qDr fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ vius ikS= fd’ku dh f'k{kk] [kku&iku] LokLF; ,oa dY;k.k dk iwjk /;ku j[ksxkA 2- vizkFkhZ lqeu fd'ku ls izR;sd jfookj dks ,oa /kkfeZd R;kSgkjksa ij izkFkhZ dks iwoZ lwpuk nsdj izkFkhZ ds ?kj ls ckgj fey ldsxh vkSj vodk'k ds fnu cPps dks vius lkFk ?kqekus] euksjatu ;k [kjhnnkjh ds fy;s ckgj ys tk ldsxh vkSj 'kke gksus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ ds ikl okfil ys vk;sxhA 3- dkykarj esa ;fn vizkFkhZ vkSj cPps fd’ku ds chp vkilh lkeatL; o izse fodflr gksrk gS vFkok ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu gksrk gS rks vizkFkhZ cPps dh vfHkj{kk ds lanHkZ esa bl vkns'k esa la'kks/ku gsrq izkFkZuk i= is'k dj ldsxhA fu;ekuqlkj izek.k i= tkjh gksA^^ It is quintessential to narrate the brief facts to appreciate the findings arrived at by the Family Court: 4. The respondent filed an application under Sections 6 and 25 of the Act with the averments that master X, six years in age, is his grandson and son of deceased Nemichand. After getting married to his son, the appellant used to quarrel and desired to reside with her brother-in-law Ramnath. She repeatedly left the marital house without intimating her husband and often declined to come. She insisted on marrying Nemichand's brother Yogesh. After getting married to his son, the appellant used to quarrel and desired to reside with her brother-in-law Ramnath. She repeatedly left the marital house without intimating her husband and often declined to come. She insisted on marrying Nemichand's brother Yogesh. During the lifetime of his son (since deceased), the appellant led an adulterous life with her brother-in-law and others, further forcing on to marry Nemichand's brother Yogesh. Thus, due to constant domestic conflicts, Nemichand committed suicide on 22.11.2016. After the death of the respondent's son, the appellant left the matrimonial house, leaving her minor son X with the paternal grandparents. The minor X was adequately nurtured and taken care of by the respondent. 5. After the death of her husband Nemichand, the appellant contacted marriage with Vishnu Mali, a resident of the village Holi Khirkiya and lived with him. Vishnu Mali murdered his first wife and had two children with his first marriage and is a man of the criminal antecedent. It is also pleaded that the appellant threatened the respondent to implicate in the case of rape and, with the aid of the police, illegally acquired custody of the minor child. The appellant handed over the child to her brothers, namely Ramraj and Kaptan. Both the brothers are indulged in gambling and are drunkards. They do not allow the respondent to meet his grandson and extract money to allow visit to the minor. It is adversely affecting minor's physical and mental health and education. The appellant is negligent towards the welfare of the minor. The respondent desires to provide higher education to his grandson for his bright future. Therefore, the custody of the minor is handed over to him. 6. The appellant, in response to the pleadings above, denied the allegations of harassment leading an adulterous life during the lifetime of her deceased husband, marrying Vishnu Mali and further refuted the averment about the conduct of her brothers and their alleged ill-treatment towards the minor and her lax attitude towards the welfare and future of her minor son. She alleges that the respondent had bad intentions towards her. After knowing the conduct of the respondent, the deceased had an altercation, and due to respondent's conduct, Nemichand committed suicide. She further alleges that after the death of her husband, respondent and his wife forcibly ousted appellant from the matrimonial house and took the minor to an undisclosed place. She alleges that the respondent had bad intentions towards her. After knowing the conduct of the respondent, the deceased had an altercation, and due to respondent's conduct, Nemichand committed suicide. She further alleges that after the death of her husband, respondent and his wife forcibly ousted appellant from the matrimonial house and took the minor to an undisclosed place. She got the custody of minor after lodging a missing report at the police station. 7. Learned Family Court framed the following issue for determination:- ^^vk;k e`rd usehpan o vizkFkhZ lqeu ds iq= ,oa izkFkhZ Hkhdeflag ds ikS= fd’ku dk dY;k.k mlds nknk Hkhdeflag vFkok mldh ekrk lqeu ds lkFk jgus esa gS\^^ 8. The respondent examined himself as AW-1 and other witnesses AW-2 Hetram, AW-3 Pappu Kushwah and AW-4 Yogesh to prove the averments. 9. The appellant testified herself as NAW-1 Suman and led evidence of NAW-2 Guddi and NAW-3 Vrindawani to repudiate the respondent's claim. 10. The Family Court after appreciating the evidence put forth, categorically held that:- (i) After 8-10 days of Nemichand's demise, appellant Suman left the matrimonial house with her brothers, leaving her minor child with the grandparents; afterwards, the minor child studied at Chourpura and remained with the grandparents for nine months. (The factum of minor X having studied at Chorpura is proved from Exhibit-1 School Certificate) Suman left the marital house after Nemichand's demise is proved from Exhibit-3. On the contrary, apart from her oral version, the appellant did not produce any documents proving that her minor son is getting education from the village school. (ii) In Exhibit-3, appellant Suman admitted that she lodged a false report against her father and mother-in-law. (iii) The appellant failed to prove that the respondent sexually harassed her and kept the minor at an undisclosed place. The version gets negated from Exhibit-3. The evidence of AW-2 Guddi and AW-3 Vrindawani in this regard is unreliable. (iv) The witnesses (NAW-2 Guddi and NAW-3 Vrindawani) adduced by the appellant have admitted that Suman doesn't have earning means and is wholly dependent on her brothers. Appellants brothers are indulged in gambling and are drunkards. The appellant has contracted marriage with Vishnu and resides in Karauli village. Apart from her oral version, the appellant did not produce any documents revealing her minor son getting an education from the village school. Whereas respondent is educated, doing tailoring work, and owns agricultural land. Appellants brothers are indulged in gambling and are drunkards. The appellant has contracted marriage with Vishnu and resides in Karauli village. Apart from her oral version, the appellant did not produce any documents revealing her minor son getting an education from the village school. Whereas respondent is educated, doing tailoring work, and owns agricultural land. During the brief stay with the respondent, minor X got proper schooling. (v) The appellant has admitted that the minor X often insists on meeting his grandfather. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant questions the conclusion arrived at by the Family Court and would contend that the Family Court did not appreciate the evidence correctly and that the mother, being a natural guardian, ought not to have been denied custody of the minor. The conclusion regarding the appellants contracting marriage with Vishnu, the brothers indulging in gambling and drunkards, is perverse. He would further argue that during the interaction of the child by this Court, the child has, in unequivocal terms, expressed the desire to stay with the mother, which indicates that he is being looked after properly and shifting the child from motherhood after the gap of six years to grandparents would adversely affect him emotionally. He further argues that the appellant is keen to continue the education of her minor son. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the findings arrived at by the Family Court. He vehemently points out that the appellant has not provided education to the minor for the last seven years, and that fact remains un-controverted. In the interaction with the Family Court, the appellant blamed the respondent for not providing Adhar card by the respondent as the reason for his non-admission to the school. The reason cited by the appellant for the minor's non-admission to the school is false and an afterthought; this solitary fact is enough to demonstrate that it is not in the welfare of the minor to keep him in the appellant's custody. Further, the evidence confirms that the appellant is uneducated and dependent on her brothers. The evidence also proves that the appellant's brothers are involved in gambling and are drunkards. The conclusion of the Family Court is well-founded and reasoned. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 13. Further, the evidence confirms that the appellant is uneducated and dependent on her brothers. The evidence also proves that the appellant's brothers are involved in gambling and are drunkards. The conclusion of the Family Court is well-founded and reasoned. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 13. We have heard both the learned counsel and considered the submissions made herein above and perused the record of the Family Court. 14. Before delineating the factual aspects of the case, it is relevant to state the law and general principles regarding entitlement to the custody of the minor. 15. Section 6 of the Act provides that in the case of a minor, nothing in this Act shall be construed to take away or derogate from any power to appoint a guardian of his person or property or both, which is valid by the law to which the minor is subject. 16. Section 7 of the Act provides for the power of the Court to make orders as to guardianship. Subsection (1) of Section 7 provides that where the Court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that an order should be made appointing a guardian of his person or property or both or declaring a person to be such a guardian, the Court may make an order accordingly. 17. Section 17 (1) & (2) and Section 25 of the Act read as under:- "17. Matters to be considered by the Court in appointing a 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." "25. Title of guardian to custody of ward-(1) If a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian of his person, the Court, if it is of the opinion that it will be for the welfare of the ward to return to the custody of his guardian, may make an order for his return and for the purpose of enforcing the order may cause the ward to be arrested and to be delivered into the custody of the guardian. (2) For the purpose of arresting the ward, the Court may exercise the power conferred on a Magistrate of the first class by section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1982). (3) The residence of a ward against the will of his guardian with a person who is not his guardian does not of itself terminate the guardianship." 18. Thus, from a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 17 read with Section 25(1) of the Act, one thing is evident in the matter of custody of the child: paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor and not the status of the parents or relatives. The word 'welfare' used in Sections 7, 17 and 25 has to be construed literally. 19. While dealing with custody cases, a court is neither bound by statutes nor strict rules of evidence or procedure. In selecting the proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. 20. Further, under Section 17 of the Act, the Court is duty-bound to find a more suitable person amongst the rival claimants. The Court and its physical well-being must also weigh the moral and ethical welfare of the child. 21. The object and purpose of the Guardians and Wards Act is not merely physical custody of the minor but due protection of the rights of the ward's health, maintenance and education. In considering the question of the welfare of the minor, due regard has, of course, to be given to the right of the parents as natural guardians, but if the custody of the parents cannot promote the welfare of the children, they may be refused such guardianship. 22. Further, It is not the better right of either party that would require adjudication while deciding their entitlement to custody. 22. Further, It is not the better right of either party that would require adjudication while deciding their entitlement to custody. The desire of the child coupled with the availability of a conducive and appropriate environment for proper upbringing, together with the ability and means of the party concerned to take care of the child, health, moral or ethical welfare, maintenance, etc., are some of the relevant factors that have to be taken into account by the Court while deciding the issue of custody of a minor. 23. The welfare principle is aimed at administering twin objectives. First, it ensures the child thrives and develops in an adequate environment. The child's best interest has been placed at the forefront of family/custody conflicts according to the optimal growth and growth of the child's precedence over other considerations. This right of the child is also based on individual dignity. The second justification behind the welfare principle is the public interest that stands served with the optimal growth of the children. The evolved Child-centric human rights jurisprudence is founded on the principle that the public reasonably demands proper child development and the country's future. 24. Further, the determination of the custody of minor children cannot be construed through a conventional modus operandi; instead, it is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Having said that, although the custody/guardianship rights cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions, the principles governing the custody of minor children are well settled. The paramount consideration while determining the custody of a minor should be the "welfare" and "well-being" of the child. 25. On the above tenets, the evidence adduced by both parties requires to be re-appreciated. (A) On the point of Minor's Education :- 26. The oral evidence of respondent AW-1 and the documentary evidence Exhibit-1 prove that while staying at Chorpura village, the minor studied from 25.07.2017 to 19.08.2017. The appellant has failed to refute the testimony of AW-1. Further, in her cross-examination, the appellant admits that minor is not admitted to any school. Exhibit-1 shows that the minor studied from 25.07.2017 to 19.08.2017. The custody of a minor afterwards is with the appellant. We also interacted with the minor, and he said he is not attending any school. The age of the minor at the relevant period when he last attended the school in the year 2017 was of 5 years age. 27. Exhibit-1 shows that the minor studied from 25.07.2017 to 19.08.2017. The custody of a minor afterwards is with the appellant. We also interacted with the minor, and he said he is not attending any school. The age of the minor at the relevant period when he last attended the school in the year 2017 was of 5 years age. 27. Thus, it is explicit that the minor did not attend any school and hung around for six years without acquiring even elementary formal education. The appellant, in interaction with the Court, expressed that due to the unavailability of the Adhar card, she could not get the minor admitted to any school. The rationale of the appellant regarding withholding the minor from gaining access to the school for such a long span is not at all conceivable. Even the brothers of the appellant should have strived to admit the minor to the school, but they failed. Such a lackadaisical approach towards the ward in the era of excellence, wholly knowing the significance of education, is against the welfare of the child and amounts to playing with the future of the minor. The appellant is accountable for thrusting the carrier of the minor in the dark. Irreparable damage to the future of the minor has already been inflicted with a far-reaching effect on mental psychosis. If the custody of the minor continues with the appellant, then indeed, the future of the minor shall be wrecked and ravaged. Therefore, continuing the custody of a minor with the appellant is detrimental and playing with his future. We know that resumption of studies after a gap of almost seven years is a colossal task and a minor may experience several problems coping up with students below or above his age. Even if it is presumed that the minor would get an amiable atmosphere in the school and would not be subjected to teasing or taunting, the minor may feel that he is not akin to other classmates and lagging behind in all the domains. Taking into consideration all the above probabilities in mind, we cannot leave the minor in the custody of the appellant to entirely ravage his future prospects. (B) On the Financial aspects:- 28. The evidence led by both parties ascertains that the respondent is financially more affluent than the appellant, having means to full-fill a family's basic needs. Taking into consideration all the above probabilities in mind, we cannot leave the minor in the custody of the appellant to entirely ravage his future prospects. (B) On the Financial aspects:- 28. The evidence led by both parties ascertains that the respondent is financially more affluent than the appellant, having means to full-fill a family's basic needs. On the contrary, the appellant is wholly dependent on her brothers, having no permanent source of earnings. (C) On the aspect of a Conducive and appropriate environment:- 29. The evidence on record exhibits that the brothers of the appellant are involved in gambling and habitual drinkers. Keeping the child in such an environment may affect him, and the possibility of falling prey to immoral activities and exploitation cannot be ruled out. 30. Further, the fact regarding the appellant contracting marriage with Vishnu having criminal antecedents and two sons from his first wife has also come on record. However, this is not verified as the evidence led by the respondent appears to lack clinching proof. Still, the other events examined above are sufficient to conclude that it is not in the interest of the minor X to continue in the custody of the appellant. We do not find any perversity in the Family Court's order while concluding the above findings. The Family Court has rightly weighed the oral and documentary evidence, and its conclusions are based on sound principles of the Evidence Act. 31. Keeping in mind the welfare of the minor in its entirety, we concur with the findings arrived at by the Family Court, resulting in the appeal being dismissed. Let appellate decree be accordingly drawn.