JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, by the original- complainant challenging, the judgment and order dated 06.03.2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Anand, vide Exh.65 in Civil Misc. Application (Guardian) No. 29 of 2014. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge has rejected the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, refusing the prayer of custody of minor child of the appellant-original complainant. While passing the aforesaid order, the learned Judge has further permitted the original complainant to meet his minor son on every second Sunday with the mutual understanding of the parties. 2. Before we express on merits of the case, it would be appropriate to consider the facts, which has emerged on record. The husband of the appellant had expired on 06.01.2013 leaving behind the appellant and his two minor sons. The elder son namely Zaid was aged around 10 years and younger son namely Azim was aged around 5 years. The date of birth of Zaid is 22.01.2005. 2.1. It is the case of the appellant that after the unfortunate demise of the husband, the appellant was driven out of her matrimonial home. Initially, she was refused to the custody of her children. In such circumstances, she was compelled to approach this Court by filing petition for habeas corpus, which was registered as Special Criminal Application No. 1408 of 2014. In the said petition, considering the allegations made against the father-in-law and mother-in-law and other family members and noticing the age of the children, this Court had directed the respondents to remain present with both the children. The Court, at that stage, had occasion to interact with both the children. Upon interaction with the children, the court noticed that welfare of both the minor children are appropriately taken care of. The bank guarantee was offered to see to it that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is made available to the daughter-in-law i.e. present appellant towards regular maintenance. 2.2 The grandfather of the minor children had offered to make arrangement of Rs.10,000/- per month on a condition that the such money should be exclusively utilized for the welfare of both his grand sons. 2.2 The grandfather of the minor children had offered to make arrangement of Rs.10,000/- per month on a condition that the such money should be exclusively utilized for the welfare of both his grand sons. In such circumstances, this Court vide order dated 23.04.2014, had granted time to make such appropriate arrangement and in the meantime, the custody of the minor child Azim was handed over to the present appellant. As regards the custody of minor child Zaid, the Court had called for relevant financial papers. As per the understanding between the parties, the financial arrangement were made and the aforesaid amounts were directed to be deposited by the father-in-law of the present appellant and the appellant was directed to withdraw such amount. 2.3 The Court noticed that the minor son Azim was happy with his mother and had expressed his desire to stay with the mother. This Court, therefore, directed the custody of minor son Azim to the present appellant until further orders. However, so far as the custody of minor child Zaid, who was aged around 10 years, is concerned, he had expressed to stay back with his grand parents and was ready to meet his brother Azim, as and when, he desires. Thus, the court had permitted minor child Zaid to meet his younger brother Azim or his mother on every Sunday at about 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. At the same time, the visitation rights of minor child Azim by the respondentsgrand parents, were not permitted. The parties have continued with such arrangement. 2.4 At that stage, this Court had an occasion to interact with minor son Zaid, and he had once again expressed to continue to stay with his grand parents, who were also present in the Court. Upon persuasion, he requested to permit his younger brother Azim to visit his grand parents’ home to enable him to spend time together. 2.5 The Court upon considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, was persuaded to modify the earlier arrangement made by this Court and directed the respondent-grand parents to allow minor child Zaid to visit his mother on every first Sunday of fortnight between 1:00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. The arrangement recorded in the order dated 05.05.2014 was continued and made absolute subject to such modification. The petition was finally disposed of with these observations on 20.08.2014. The petition was finally disposed of with these observations on 20.08.2014. 2.6 On the other hand, the present appellant being the mother of the minor child Zaid, was not satisfied with the visitation rights granted by this Court and being natural guardian decided to get the custody of his child namely Zaid and proceeded to file application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The aforesaid Civil Misc. Application (Guardian) No. 29 of 2014, came to be registered before the Family Court at Anand on 22.12.2014. 2.7 During the aforesaid proceedings, the learned Family Court Judge has made attempt to resolve the dispute. During such proceedings, the learned Judge interacted with minor child Zaid to ascertain his wish, wherein he had reiterated his desire to reside together with his grand parents. Such view was expressed in the open court. In such circumstances, the Court had proceeded to decide the application on merits. 2.8 The Court upon appreciation of the evidence, which has come on record, had arrived at a finding that minor child Zaid was properly looked after by his uncle as well as grand parents. The Court had also taken into consideration the fact that he is provided good education and was having his schooling at the Salvation Army English Medium School, Anand. So far as the financial condition of the grand parents is concerned, the Court noticed that all the requirements of minor child Zaid is taken care of. The Court noticed that in fact, the financial condition of the appellant is miserable noticing that an application was pending before the District Social Welfare Officer and the appellant is at mercy of her parents. 2.9 In such circumstances, the Court having noted the desire expressed by minor child Zaid and considering the welfare of the minor child, refused to hand over the custody of child to the appellant. With such findings and reasons, the learned Family Court Judge proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. However, at the same time, considering the age of the minor child Zaid and the fact that the appellant being the mother, the learned Family Court Judge permitted the visitation rights of the appellant. Hence, this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 3. Heard Mr. Pradeep Patel, learned advocate on record for the appellant and Mr. However, at the same time, considering the age of the minor child Zaid and the fact that the appellant being the mother, the learned Family Court Judge permitted the visitation rights of the appellant. Hence, this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 3. Heard Mr. Pradeep Patel, learned advocate on record for the appellant and Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate on record for the respondent. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and the grounds raised in the memo of appeal, this Court at the admission stage, had issued notice vide order dated 30.07.2018 and had further directed the respondent to remain present before this Court along with elder son of the appellant namely Zaid. The respondent as directed by this Court, had remained present with the elder son of the appellant. The interim arrangement was made with regard to the visitation rights of the appellant, which was continued from time to time. Having noticed the controversy involved, this Court vide order dated 09.01.2019, had directed the Protection Officer to submit the report, whereby the Court had called for verification of details, which include the details related to source of approximate income of the appellant, the details about the education of the child i.e. school in which, he was pursuing studies, whether he was regularly attending the school, whether his fees were regularly paid, whether he stays alone or with grand parents. 5. The Protection Officer in compliance of the direction issued by this Court, has submitted the detailed report dated 19.01.2019. Along with the said report, the statements of the appellant and the respondent were also placed on record along with relevant documents. After passage of time of almost 4 years, this Court vide order dated 19.12.2022, persuaded the parties to make an endeavor to settle the dispute about the custody and visitation rights of the child through mediation process. 6. The matter, was therefore, referred to the High Court Mediation Centre. The attempts were made initially by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Unfortunately, such attempts had remained unsuccessful and the matter was re-listed for hearing on merits. Thus, the matter was notified for hearing on 06.03.2023 before this Court. 6. The matter, was therefore, referred to the High Court Mediation Centre. The attempts were made initially by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Unfortunately, such attempts had remained unsuccessful and the matter was re-listed for hearing on merits. Thus, the matter was notified for hearing on 06.03.2023 before this Court. After arguing for some, it was noticed by the Court that the original application seeking custody of child under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, was filed on 22.12.2014, at the stage, when the age of the minor child Zaid was contended to be around of 10 years. With passage of time of almost 9 years, the Court had directed the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to ascertain the date of birth of minor child Zaid. 7. When the matter was listed on 15.03.2023, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has placed on record the birth certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Birth and Death, Anand Nagar Palika, wherein date of birth of minor child Zaid is mentioned as 22.01.2005. Thus, it has been confirmed that the minor child Zaid has attended the age of majority. 8. The question of guardianship as well as custody under the Muslim Personal Laws is governed by the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Section 4(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, defines the expression “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is to be deemed not have attained his majority. If one looks at Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, it prescribes the age of majority of persons domiciled in India. The same reads as under: 3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India: (1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before. (2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day. 9. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, the Muslim male for the purpose of custody matters would be treated to have attained his majority on his completing the age of 18 years and not before. 9. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, the Muslim male for the purpose of custody matters would be treated to have attained his majority on his completing the age of 18 years and not before. In the present case, indisputably, the date of birth of minor child Zaid, which has come on record is 22.01.2005. As on today, he has attained the age of 18 years, 1 month and 24 days and has therefore, ceased to be a minor. 10. Similar issue had arisen for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Soni Gerry vs. Gerry Douglas, (2018) 2 SCC 197 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual's life has its own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice. The Courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the Court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation.” 11. In light of this development and having expressed all throughout of continuing to reside with his grand parents, the Court finds that no purpose would be served at this stage to adjudicate the issue on merits. Even otherwise, once the child attains the age of majority, he has liberty to live his life as per his own will, wish and desire. The Court cannot curtail his liberty. Having noticed the aforesaid facts, without entering into the merits of the case, the present appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. 12. In view of the disposal of main appeal, pending Civil Application (for Interim Relief) does not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly. Notice stands discharged.