JUDGMENT : K.V. ARAVIND, J. 1. Heard Sri Hemanth R. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. 2. These appeals arise out of the common order dated 29.10.2024 passed in G & WC No.175/2019 and G & WC No.260/2020 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru , [Family Court] 3. G & WC No.175/2019 was filed under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by the maternal uncle, aunt, and grandmother, seeking appointment of the maternal uncle and aunt as de jure guardians of the minor, Master Bhuvan H., and for permission to continue to have his custody. G & WC No.260/2020 was filed by the father under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of his minor son, Master Bhuvan H. 4. The Family Court, after considering the common evidence, rejected the petition filed by the father and allowed the petition in G & WC No.175/2019, directing that the custody of the minor shall continue with the petitioners till he attains the age of majority. The Family Court further observed that upon attaining majority, the ward, Master Bhuvan H., may opt to reside with his father. These appeals are filed by the father assailing the said common order. 5. Sri Hemanth R. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the Family Court has placed undue emphasis on the wish of the ward to continue in the custody of the maternal uncle. Learned counsel contends that the Family Court has failed to apply the principle of the paramount welfare of the ward in its true perspective. It is further submitted that the appellant, being the father, is financially well placed to support and build the career of the ward, whereas the maternal uncle lacks the economic means to do so. It is further contended that, owing to the poor financial condition of the maternal uncle, the appellant has been bearing the educational and other expenses of the ward. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in a position to provide better facilities and opportunities for the ward’s overall development than those presently available with the maternal uncle. 5.1 Learned counsel further submits that the father, being the natural guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor irrespective of any other consideration. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in a position to provide better facilities and opportunities for the ward’s overall development than those presently available with the maternal uncle. 5.1 Learned counsel further submits that the father, being the natural guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor irrespective of any other consideration. It is contended that the Family Court, while directing that the custody of the ward shall remain with the maternal uncle, failed to consider the legal right of the appellant to have custody of his minor son. Learned counsel further submits that the observations made by the Family Court for continuing the custody with the maternal uncle are unfounded and without any legal basis. 5.2 The appellant has relied upon the following judgments to contend that, being the father and natural guardian, he is entitled to the custody of the minor. It is further submitted that the wish of the child, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for determining the custody of the minor ward. (i) Gautam Kumar Das vs. NCT of Delhi and others , [2024] 8 S.C.R. 451 (ii) Sri G. Prabhudev and another vs. Smt. Ranganayaki and others , MFA No.4658/2023 C/W MFA CROB No.24/2024 ; and (iii) Rohith Thammana Gowda vs. State of Karnataka & others , [2022] 4 SCR 784 6. Per contra, Sri S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, reiterating the submissions made before the Family Court, submits that the ward is comfortable in the custody of the respondents. Having regard to the age of the ward, it is contended that it would not be in the best interest of the child to compel a change of custody in favour of the father. It is further submitted that the ward is presently pursuing a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, and any change of custody at this stage would adversely affect his academic progress. However, learned counsel fairly submits that if the ward, of his own volition, expresses a desire to reside with his father, the respondents would have no objection thereto. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have expressed no objection to the custody of Master Bhuvan H. being given to the appellant. However, such submission is stated to be subject to the wish of the ward. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have expressed no objection to the custody of Master Bhuvan H. being given to the appellant. However, such submission is stated to be subject to the wish of the ward. The Family Court has referred to the cordial relationship between the appellant and the respondents, as well as the interactive and affectionate relationship between the appellant and the ward. The Family Court has further recorded, based on its interaction with the parties and the ward during the proceedings, that the appellant and the respondents share cordial relations and are on good talking terms. It is further observed by the Family Court that the ward shares a good relationship with his father and that the father has been attending to the needs of his son, Master Bhuvan H. However, after recording the above findings, the Family Court misdirected itself in according undue weight to the wish and opinion of the ward. The Family Court further held that, since the ward had lost his mother at a very young age, he feels comfortable, safe, and secure in the care of the maternal uncle, i.e., the respondents, and that his preference to continue residing with them would be in his best interest. 8. On consideration of the evidence on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the appellant is willing to take custody of his son and to guide and support him in shaping his career by providing better educational opportunities and other comforts. The respondents have not raised any serious objection to handing over the custody of the ward to the appellant. Notwithstanding the above, the Family Court has misdirected itself by placing undue emphasis on the wish of the ward, rather than assessing the matter in light of the paramount consideration which is the welfare of the child. 9. As the entire order of the Family Court rests substantially on the wish of the ward, we deemed it appropriate to interact in chambers with the appellant, respondent No.1, and the ward-Master Bhuvan H. During the course of interaction, we noticed certain relevant aspects concerning each of them. 9. As the entire order of the Family Court rests substantially on the wish of the ward, we deemed it appropriate to interact in chambers with the appellant, respondent No.1, and the ward-Master Bhuvan H. During the course of interaction, we noticed certain relevant aspects concerning each of them. 9.1 Firstly, on interacting with the appellant, who is the father of the ward, it emerged that both the appellant and his father possess a background in mechanical engineering and are engaged in their own business relating to machinery. The appellant also has a steady source of rental income. Hence, we find that the father is financially well placed, which would enable him to support the ward’s further education and career development. During the interaction with the ward, it was stated that he had chosen to pursue a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering at Acharya Polytechnic College, Bengaluru. This choice was initially objected to by the appellant, who had advised the ward to join M.S. Ramaiah Polytechnic College. The appellant explained that M.S. Ramaiah Polytechnic College is located closer to the residence of the ward, whereas the college opted by the ward is situated at a distance with inadequate transport connectivity. The appellant further explained that his objection was based on safety concerns, as the ward would be required to commute by motorcycle due to the lack of convenient public transport. The appellant further stated that, after advising his son not to use a motorcycle, he ultimately consented to his admission to Acharya Polytechnic College and paid the requisite fees thereafter. This situation has been projected by the respondents as an instance of the father obstructing the ward’s education. However, on careful consideration, we find no reason to disbelieve the explanation offered by the father. 9.2 Secondly, on interacting with Master Bhuvan H., the ward, we found him to be mature, possessing an independent thought process and the ability to make certain decisions on his own, though such decisions would require proper guidance and supervision from his parent or guardians. When we enquired with the ward regarding his willingness to reside with his father, he did not express any reluctance. On the contrary, he indicated his desire to join his father at the earliest. Upon being asked when he proposed to do so, he stated cheerfully that he would join his father immediately after completion of his current semester examinations. When we enquired with the ward regarding his willingness to reside with his father, he did not express any reluctance. On the contrary, he indicated his desire to join his father at the earliest. Upon being asked when he proposed to do so, he stated cheerfully that he would join his father immediately after completion of his current semester examinations. With regard to his future academic plans, the ward stated that upon completing his Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, he intends to pursue a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering. He also volunteered that the appellant has been assisting him in his studies through video calls. 9.3 Thereafter, we interacted with respondent No.1, who stated that he has no objection to the ward joining his father if the ward so desires. When enquired about his financial position and family circumstances, he stated that he has a daughter and is also taking care of his mother. However, his financial capacity to support the future academic career of Master Bhuvan H. was not clearly established. It appears that immediately after the death of the appellant’s wife, the ward was taken into the care of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who looked after him during that period. It is also to be noted that at that time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were without children of their own; however, they now have one child. 10. On consideration of the evidence on record and the interaction held with the parties, we find that there exists no serious dispute with regard to handing over the custody of Master Bhuvan H. to the appellant. Even otherwise, the appellant, being the father, is legally entitled to the custody of his minor son. Having regard to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child in all its facets, we are of the view that the custody of Master Bhuvan H. would be appropriately placed with the appellant. The appellant resides with his father and has no other dependents. He is financially well placed to provide for the ward’s education and to guide him in his career development. Further, during our interaction, Master Bhuvan H. did not express any reluctance to join his father. On the contrary, when real life situations and future uncertainties were discussed with him, he willingly agreed to reside with his father. 11. He is financially well placed to provide for the ward’s education and to guide him in his career development. Further, during our interaction, Master Bhuvan H. did not express any reluctance to join his father. On the contrary, when real life situations and future uncertainties were discussed with him, he willingly agreed to reside with his father. 11. In view of our findings hereinabove, the aspect of evidence on record is not discussed, as the same is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and, the judgments cited are not required to be examined. Hence, we have not made any observations on the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. In the light of the above observations, we do not find it necessary to delve into or re-appreciate the findings recorded by the Family Court. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeals in MFA No.1658/2025 and MFA No.1598/2025, are allowed (ii) The common order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in G & WC No.175/2019 and in G & WC No.260/2020, is set aside. (iii) G & WC No.260/2020 is hereby allowed and G & WC No.175/2019 is dismissed. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to handover the custody of Master Bhuvan H., to the appellant-father within two weeks.