JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Niraj Kumar Upadhyay-Opposite Party appearing in person. 2. At the outset when this matter was taken up this Court tried to send the matter for settlement between the parties however Mr. Niraj Kumar Upadhyay-opposite party refused to go for settlement and has stated that he wants only divorce and in view of his adamant attitude this petition is being heard on merit. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 18.04.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 852 of 2022 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-1, Ranchi whereby the learned court has been pleased to dispose of the petitions dated 20.12.2022, 02.02.2023, 31.03.2023, 26.07.2023 and 25.08.2023 by way of allowing the visitation rights to father in terms stated in that order. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is wife of sole opposite party and the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.2006 according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of the wedlock a male child was born on 28.11.2007 and the name of child is Avish Upadhyay. He further submits that the petitioner was forced to live separately from the opposite party initially from 27.05.2007 to 08.06.2010. He then submits that since the birth, the child also lived without care or company of the father and again the petitioner and opposite party started living separately since 15.4.2019. According to him that separation was due to neglect, ill treatment, refusal and failures of the opposite party. He then submits that the petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial house and she had to come to her maternal house in Bokaro in the month of May, 2007 while she was pregnant. However, again she went to her matrimonial house on 8.6.2010 and she was again neglected by the opposite party. He further submits that the sole opposite party filed an application on 22.07.2019 vide Guardianship Petition No. 63 of 2019 under sections 7, 8, 9, 10 read with section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 against the petitioner. The said petition was filed seeking appointment of guardian and custody of the ward Avish Upadhyay. He further submits that the sole opposite party filed an application on 22.07.2019 vide Guardianship Petition No. 63 of 2019 under sections 7, 8, 9, 10 read with section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 against the petitioner. The said petition was filed seeking appointment of guardian and custody of the ward Avish Upadhyay. He then submits that sole opposite party herein also instituted a divorce petition being Divorce Petition No. 1618 of 2019 before the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Ghaziabad and for transfer of the said case the Transfer Petition being Transfer Petition No. 74 of 2020 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 86 of 2020 for transfer of Guardianship Petition No. 63 of 2019 to Ranchi was filed where the petitioner was residing. He submits that by a common order dated 15.09.2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to allow those petitions and has transferred the Guardianship Petition No. 63 of 2019 and Divorce Petition No. 1618 of 2019 to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi and after receipt of the same the Guardianship Petition No. 63 of 2019 was re-numbered as Original Suit No. 852 of 2022 and Divorce petition No. 1618 of 2019 was re- numbered as Original Suit No. 854 of 2022. He further submits that the learned court on the petition filed by the sole opposite party passed order dated 18.04.2024 allowing the father to visit his son once in two months till he completed his 12 th Board examination and thereafter once in a month preferably on 4 th Saturday before Mediation Centre, DLSA, Ranchi for two hours in peaceful and secure environment under supervision of Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi in any appropriate time fixed by the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi. However, father was directed to inform the respondent and the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi at least one week prior to exercise his visitation right in such a manner. He submits that the child inspite of the said order of the learned court is not ready to meet with his father and to buttress this argument he refers to whatsapp message at page 159 of the C.M.P and submits that said message is in clear terms that the child told to father that not to disturb and do not call me. On this background he submits that the said part of order of visitation right of the father may kindly be modified. On this background he submits that the said part of order of visitation right of the father may kindly be modified. He further submits that the main case is still pending before the learned court and parties are appearing in both cases before the learned court. He further submits that by the interim maintenance order dated 21.10.2020 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 133 of 2019 compliance has not been made as yet by the sole opposite party and the arrear is also there to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/-at the time of filing of the petition. On these grounds he submits that an appropriate order may kindly be passed. 5. Per contra, Opposite Party-Mr. Niraj Kumar Upadhyay appearing in person opposes the prayer. He submits that the suit was instituted in the year, 2019 itself and till date it is pending and he is taking all the efforts to appear each and every date before the learned court. According to him false fact has been stated by the petitioner herein before this Court and before the learned court and in view of that I.A, No. 4982 of 2025 has been filed for initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that he is biological father inspite of that till date the child has not been allowed to meet with him and even grand parents of the child have left for their heavenly abode without meeting the grand child. He submits that this Court is required to maintain balance between the petitioner and father and welfare of the child is prime consideration in such type of cases and to buttress this argument he relied in the case of “ V. Anusha Vs. B. Krishnan ” (2022) SCC Online Mad 4609 and of a Karnataka High Court in the case of “ Smt. Jyoti Priya V. Shri Paul Goodwin J.” ( Writ Petition No. 101082/2021) and of the Hon’ble Supreme court the case reported in 2025 INSC 358 6. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further on merit of the case addressed the Court why he is aggrieved and compelled to file divorce petition. He further submits that he is not knowing what is the grievance of the child-Avish Upadhyay which is required to be counselled between him and child. 7. He further on merit of the case addressed the Court why he is aggrieved and compelled to file divorce petition. He further submits that he is not knowing what is the grievance of the child-Avish Upadhyay which is required to be counselled between him and child. 7. On the point of interim maintenance, Mr. Upadhyay submits that so far child is concerned he is already paying Rs. 15,000/-. He submits that however, he has not paid maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- which is meant for wife. He submits that part of order is being contested by him before the learned court by way of appropriate petition. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 8. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein and the sole opposite party are wife and husband respectively. Out of their wedlock a male child was born on 28.11.2007. Allegations are there by both the sides that one is not taking care of another and pursuant to that Divorce Petition No. 1618 of 2019 and Guardianship Petition No. 63 of 2019 were instituted before the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Ghaziabad and pursuant to Transfer Petition being Transfer Petition No. 74 of 2020 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 86 of 2020 by a common order dated 15.09.2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to transfer Guardianship Petition No. 63 of 2019 and Divorce Petition No. 1618 of 2019 to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi and after receipt of the same the Guardianship Petition No. 63 of 2019 was re- numbered as Original Suit No. 852 of 2022 and Divorce petition No. 1618 of 2019 was re-numbered as Original Suit No. 854 of 2022. The sole opposite party herein filed many petitions for interim custody of Avish Upadhyay in which visiting right has been sought which has been allowed by the learned court by order dated 18.04.2024 and pursuant to that direction has been issued by the learned court and considering the fact and parameters of deciding such petition particularly considering the welfare of the child and in view of that the learned court has been pleased to allow the father to visit his son once in two months till he completed his 12 th Board examination and thereafter once in a month preferably on 4 th Saturday before Mediation Centre, DLSA, Ranchi for two hours in peaceful and secure environment under supervision of Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi in any appropriate time fixed by the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi. However, father was directed to inform the respondent and the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi at least one week prior to exercising his visitation right in such a manner. 9. From the impugned order itself it is clear that both the parties are living separately from 15.04.2019 and prior to their separation both the parties along with their son lived in Delhi where their son was pursuing his studies and presently child is living at Ranchi with her mother studying in class-12 th . It has been pointed out that now Avish Upadhyay has appeared in 12 th Board examination. There are allegation and counter allegation between the petitioner and sole opposite parties. It appears from the impugned order that learned court has once an occasion to meet and interact with the child and during interaction found that the child is not having good thoughts towards his father and there is lack of bonding between father and son and even after several persuasion by the learned court the child did not ready to talk with his father-opposite party in this background learned court has been pleased to pass the impugned order. 10. Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 empowers courts to make such order for the temporary custody and protection of the person or property of the minor as it thinks proper. 10. Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 empowers courts to make such order for the temporary custody and protection of the person or property of the minor as it thinks proper. In matters of custody in the light of several judicial proceedings it is well settled that the welfare of the children is the sole and single yardstick by which the court shall assess the comparative merit of the parties contesting for the custody and in view of that the Court is required to be guided by the welfare of the children since Section 12 empowers the court to make any order as it deems proper. 11. The custody of the child between the father was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Rosy Jacob V. Jacob A. Chakramakkal reported in (1973) 1 SCC 840 wherein para the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “15. …….Merely because the father loves his children and is not shown to be otherwise undesirable cannot necessarily lead to the conclusion that the welfare of the children would be better promoted by granting their custody to him as against the wife who may also be equally affectionable towards her children and otherwise equally free from blemish, and, who, in addition, because of her profession and financial resources, may be in a position to guarantee better health, education and maintenance for them.” 12. The custody under the Mohammadan Law was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Siddiqunnisa Bibi V. Nizamuddin Khan ” reported in AIR 1932 All 215 wherein page 218 it has been held as under:- “A question has been raised before us whether the right under the Mahomedan Law of the female relation of a minor girl under the age of puberty to the custody of the person of the girl is identical with the guardianship of the person of the minor or whether it is something different and distinct. The right to the custody of such a minor vested in her female relations, is absolute and is subject to several conditions including the absence of residing at a distance from the father’s place of residence and want of taking proper care of the child. The right to the custody of such a minor vested in her female relations, is absolute and is subject to several conditions including the absence of residing at a distance from the father’s place of residence and want of taking proper care of the child. It is also clear that the supervision of the child by the father continues in spite of the fact that she is under the care of her female relation, as the burden of providing maintenance for the child rests exclusively on the father." 13. In view of above the question of guardianship can be independent of an distinct from that of custody in the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. Paramount consideration is welfare of the child and not legal rights of parents. The child has shown his unwillingness to meet his father and is residing along with his mother at Ranchi. 15. In view of above dispute it is not possible for the petitioner as well as sole opposite party to rewind the clock and give Avish Upadhyay a healthy, happy and complete family which he always deserved and in view of that both the parents should express some regret and take this as an opportunity and adopt corrective measures and help Avish Upadhyay to remove scars from his mind. They should give utmost priority to the welfare of Avish Upadhyay and provide him safe and comfortable atmosphere to interact with his entire family. 16. In this background it is the responsibility of the Court to enter into the role of a guardian for the child and by considering the paramount interest of Avish Upadhyay, decide in what best manner, Avish Upadhyay will be able to meet his father. However, at the same time, the checkered history of the litigation between both the parties cannot be ignored. 17. The chart by way of the supplementary affidavit of educational examination of Avish Upadhyay has been disclosed wherein it has been stated that he is appearing in different examinations since 24.02.2025 to 14.09.2025 and the name of the examination has been shown in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. 18. Learned court has passed the impugned order considering the litigation between the parties and welfare of the child however the child is not ready to meet his father. 18. Learned court has passed the impugned order considering the litigation between the parties and welfare of the child however the child is not ready to meet his father. The Court finds that inspite of best efforts in the light of order of the learned court even the meeting is not materialized by the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi. As such the impugned order is modified in the following manners:- (a) The mother, Rashmi Pandey, is directed to file a duly sworn affidavit -cum-undertaking by herself before the learned court thereby intimating the date and time to appear before the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi on which date she will take efforts to accompany Avish Upadhyay. The mother will take sincere endeavour to take the child before the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi. (b) The father, Niraj Kumar Upadhyay, is directed to file a duly sworn affidavit-cum-undertaking before the learned court thereby stating that he shall not initiate any complaint or trigger any action against Rashmi Pandey and Avish Upadhyay. (c) In the light of order of the learned court, the father will intimate the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi a week before if he intends to visit the child after serving a copy to the mother. (d) The Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi shall take endeavor for a meeting between the father and Avish Upadhyay in presence of mother and it will be ensured that during the meeting unnecessary interference will not be made by the mother before the Secretary, DLSA. (e) Every meeting will be recorded by Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi and what transpires between the father and child will also be intimated to the learned court. (f) Further, it is open to the Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi if any direction is not complied by either of the parties separate report will be made to the learned court. 19. It has been pointed out during course of argument by Mr. Niraj Kumar Upadhyay that in open court he has been manhandled and complaint to that effect he has already made before the concerned court. 20. In view of that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi will ensure that visit of Niraj Kumar Upadhyay would not be obstructed in any manner. 21. Niraj Kumar Upadhyay that in open court he has been manhandled and complaint to that effect he has already made before the concerned court. 20. In view of that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi will ensure that visit of Niraj Kumar Upadhyay would not be obstructed in any manner. 21. The aforesaid direction shall be implemented after 26.06.2025 considering the fact that it has been pointed out that Avish Upadhyay is appearing in competitive examination of Birla Institute of Technology & Science Admission Test scheduled to be held by 26.06.2025. 22. The order dated 18.04.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 852 of 2022 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-1, Ranchi is modified to the above extent. This petition is disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 23. So far the main case is concerned, that will be decided by the learned court in accordance with law. 24. This Court has not entered into the merit of the case as such Divorce Case and Guardianship Case shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudice to this order. This order has been passed only with regard to interim arrangement.