JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. Mr. Baral, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who is maternal grandmother of the child. He submits, his client is aggrieved by judgment dated 25th April, 2023 made by the family Court dismissing the civil proceeding, wherein his client had claimed custody of the minor child, presently almost 9 years old. Daughter of his client died in suspicious circumstances. Criminal case is pending. In the circumstances, his client had well founded reasons to have applied for custody. All his client wants is welfare of the child as may not be looked into if she remains with her father and paternal grandparents in the house, where her mother met with her death. The family Court erred in only relying upon wishes of the child to make impugned judgment. 2. He relies on oral order dated 3rd November, 2017 made by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in C/FA/982/2017 (Alkaben Shaileshbhai Kubavat v. Seemaben Alias Shitalben Hiteshbhai Kubavat) to submit, at least visitation should be directed. His client is prepared to meet her granddaughter in the nearby Child Welfare Centre. 3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents, who are the father and paternal grandparents. 4. It appears from impugned judgment, the father had pleaded that his wife committed suicide at home, when he was not there. The child is happy in her environment and she has been admitted in a reputed school. It is to her welfare that she not be disturbed. 5. Mr. Baral produces, inter alia, the post-mortem report. We have perused it. There is observation regarding ligature marks on the neck. On query from Court we are told death was by hanging. Also said in the report was preservation of viscera and reserving opinion. On further query from Court parties are unable to produce opinion given on the post-mortem. It is admitted position that a criminal case is pending in connection with the death. 6. Mr. Baral also relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, reported in (2008) 9 SCC, paragraph 72. Facts in that case were similar. The mother had died. The difference is, in that case the father had sought custody, confirmed by the High Court. The child was residing with his maternal grandparents. Among other things the child was interviewed by the learned judges. We reproduce below paragraph 72. Facts in that case were similar. The mother had died. The difference is, in that case the father had sought custody, confirmed by the High Court. The child was residing with his maternal grandparents. Among other things the child was interviewed by the learned judges. We reproduce below paragraph 72. "72. We have called Antariksh in our chamber. To us, he appeared to be quite intelligent. When we asked him whether he wanted to go to his father and to stay with him, he unequivocally refused to go with him or to stay with him. He also stated that he was very happy with his, maternal grandparents and would like to continue to stay with them. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it would not be proper on the facts and in the circumstances to give custody of Antariksh to his father, the respondent herein." We also reproduce below paragraph 8 from impugned judgment. "08. I have examined the child Dibyanshi Kar who couldn't recognize the petitioner. Being asked by me she has also expressed that she does not want to live with the petitioner as she has never resided with her. She further states that she does not know her. Considering the wish of the child and her comfort with respondent no.1, 2 and 3, this court feels that welfare of respondent no.4 doesn't lean in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The Civil Proceeding is dismissed on contest, but without any cost." 7. The family Court in considering wishes of the child for deciding the claim for custody by appellant cannot be said to have failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances or committed error. In Alkaben (supra) there was presentation of alternative claims, of custody or visitation right. The paternal grandparents had claimed consequent to demise of the father and the child in custody of the widow. It appears from the order, learned counsel for the widow was not totally opposed to limited visitation. In the circumstances, the order relied upon becomes one that was made on consent. 8. On query from Court we have ascertained that relationship between maternal grandparents and their son-in-law, including his family is not cordial. Appellant blames her son-in-law for her daughter's death. In the circumstances, there does not arise any question of directing visitation to be held at the residence of respondents. 8. On query from Court we have ascertained that relationship between maternal grandparents and their son-in-law, including his family is not cordial. Appellant blames her son-in-law for her daughter's death. In the circumstances, there does not arise any question of directing visitation to be held at the residence of respondents. We are hesitant to direct visitation at any other place as it appears from impugned judgment, the child has her own impression about who is or are her family. That impression excludes appellant and the maternal grandfather or for that matter any other relative from the mother's side. The child is in custody of her father and her paternal grandparents. This impression they have given her. 9. In view of aforesaid we are not inclined to interfere in appeal. However, respondents must remember that the girl will grow up and ask questions regarding her mother and her family. They will have to answer those questions. We go so far as to say that in event for customary and other functions if there is invitation for the child and her paternal family extended by her mother's side, the occasion should be utilised for reconciliation. 10. Impugned judgment is confirmed and the appeal disposed of.