JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2024 and the decree dated 23.11.2024 passed in Original Suit No.1136 of 2022 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court No.II, Dhanbad (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant for appointment of guardian of minor child, namely, Shivansh Sinha (in short, minor) and for custody and declaring him to be lawful guardian has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as: (i) The pleading of petitioner in brief is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Soni Kumari, daughter of the respondent in the year 2017. Out of the wedlock they have been blessed with one son, namely, Shivansh. It is further stated that on 31.05.2022 Soni Kumari @ Gudia, wife of the petitioner committed suicide. (ii) It is pleaded that the respondent has filed a case u/s 306 IPC in Saraidhela P.S. Case No-107/22, GR. Case No.2018/22 in ST Case No-861/22 against the petitioner. The petitioner was in judicial custody since 02.06.2022 and, in the meanwhile, when he was in jail the respondents forcibly taken custody of the child of the petitioner and ruining the future of the minor child. (iii) It is further stated that after taking in custody the respondent neglected to pay school fee of his son. His son is studying in DPS School, Class-Nursery. (iv) It is alleged that after taking custody of the minor child the respondents have refused to hand over the custody of child to the petitioner who is non else but the real father of the minor child. 3. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner-appellant, has, therefore, prayed for passing an order directing the respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to him and to appoint him the guardian of the child. 4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.1136 of 2022 upon issuance of the notices, the respondents, who are the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of the minor (the respondents herein) have appeared and filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner-appellant. 5. 4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.1136 of 2022 upon issuance of the notices, the respondents, who are the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of the minor (the respondents herein) have appeared and filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner-appellant. 5. It is alleged in the written statement that the suit filed by petitioner/appellant is not maintainable either in law or in the fact and hence liable to be dismissed in Limine and the instant suit has been filed with an ulterior motive. 6. It is further stated that it is admitted fact that daughter of the respondents, namely, Soni Kumari was married to the petitioner. At the time of the marriage, the daughter of the respondent was employed as teacher in Central School, Chennai. 7. It is alleged that the petitioner used to torture Soni Kumari physically and mentally and demand her salaries failing which the petitioner had beaten her continuously. 8. It is stated that the matter was informed to Dhansar PS thereafter, spouses started living separately. 9. It is further stated that the respondent is a businessman and earning handsome amount and is capable to provide education to child and may take care the child. The respondent is an assesses of income-tax. 10. It is stated that the petitioner is neither entitled nor suitable for being appointed as guardian to the minor child and the case is fit to be dismissed. 11. Learned Family Judge, after institution of the said case, taking into consideration of the pleadings of the parties has formulated the issues and has decided the lis by dismissing the suit. 12. The aforesaid judgment, by which the prayer of the petitioner- appellant for appointment of a guardian of the minor child, namely, Shivansh and for custody and declaring him to be lawful guardian has been dismissed, is under challenge by filing the instant appeal. Submission on behalf of the petitioner-appellant: 13. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant has taken the following grounds: (i) As has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant that the reason for dismissal of the suit is that the learned Family Judge has gone into the issue of welfare of the minor without taking into consideration the issue of father being the natural guardian. (ii) It has been contended that the relationship of the husband with the wife (now deceased) was not strained rather child was living with the father at the time of death of his wife but with the ulterior motive, the minor was taken away by the respondents, who are the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of the minor and since then the minor has not been allowed to come to the residence of the father (the appellant herein). (iii) Even the issue of welfare of the minor although has been taken into consideration by the learned Family Judge but without taking into consideration the fact that there is no consideration on the issue of welfare of the minor, since, the minor was admitted in the School of repute, namely, the Delhi Public School, Dhanbad and thereafter, the minor had been admitted in another School, i.e., B.N. Public School which is not of the same standard as that of the Delhi Public School, Dhanbad which itself suggest that there is no consideration of welfare of the minor although while answering the issue no.4 along with the issue no.3 such consideration has been made that the welfare of the minor is to be taken into consideration but the question is that when the minor who had admitted in the Delhi Public School, Dhanbad but deleting his name from that School admitting in the School which is inferior to that of Delhi Public School, Dhanbad then how can it be said that the issue of welfare of the minor has been taken into consideration by the father, the appellant herein. (iv) It has been contended that although the mother of the minor is no more but there are other family members who are to take care of the interest of the minor but even the same has not been taken into consideration by the learned Family Judge. 14. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference. Submission on behalf of the respondents: 15. Per contra, Mr. 14. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from perversity, therefore, needs interference. Submission on behalf of the respondents: 15. Per contra, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has taken the following grounds: (i) There is no error in the impugned judgement as the learned Family Judge has considered the entire issue and on the basis of evidence as led by the petitioner-appellant has passed the order impugned as such same may not be interfered with. (ii) It has been contended that the issue of welfare as per the provision provided under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is required to be taken into consideration, exactly the same has been taken into consideration by the learned Family Judge while dealing with the specific issues formulated by the learned Family Judge as issue nos. (III) and (IV). (iii) It has been contended that after the death of the mother there is no one to take care of the minor, since it is admitted case of the appellant that the minor will be taken care of by the wife of his brother. (iv) It has also been contended that even the paternal grandmother of the minor is also not alive and paternal grandfather is aged about 84 years. (v) The contention has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that so far as the schooling of the minor is concerned it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner-appellant to take the ground that the B.N. Public School is inferior to that of Delhi Public School, Dhanbad, rather after taking concrete decision and in the welfare of the minor the re-admission in the B.N. Public School has been done. (vi) It has been contended that merely on the ground of admitting the minor in the particular School does not mean that there is no consideration on the issue of welfare of the minor. (vi) It has been contended that merely on the ground of admitting the minor in the particular School does not mean that there is no consideration on the issue of welfare of the minor. (vii) The contention has been raised that it has come in the evidence of the petitioner-father, who has deposed as PW1 that everything has been done by the respondents side for the purpose of taking money of Rs.10 lakhs which was to be paid after death of the mother of the minor but exactly the said amount has already been disbursed in favour of the petitioner-appellant and, hence, such averment which has been deposed by the father, itself suggests that only for the purpose of making out a case such allegation has been levelled against the respondents. (viii) It has also been contended that the learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the entire facts on the basis of the spirit of the statutory provision and on consideration of the issue of the welfare of the minor the custody has not been handed over in favour of the appellant-father. 16. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned Family Judge has rightly recorded its finding that the petitioner could not be able to prove the case for custody of minor child, hence, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 17. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone through the impugned judgment and the findings thereof, as also the testimonies of the witnesses and evidences available on record. 18. The learned Family Judge has formulated altogether five issues, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereinbelow: I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action for the suit? III.Who will be the guardian of the ward? IV. Who will serve the welfare of the ward? V. Whether petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed for? 19. In pursuance to the notice issued to the respondents, they have appeared in the present proceeding and, as such, we with the consent thereof, at this stage, have heard the matter on merit at length. 20. IV. Who will serve the welfare of the ward? V. Whether petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed for? 19. In pursuance to the notice issued to the respondents, they have appeared in the present proceeding and, as such, we with the consent thereof, at this stage, have heard the matter on merit at length. 20. The issue which requires consideration in the present proceeding is that as to whether while giving finding by dismissing the suit by denying the custody of the minor in favour of the petitioner-appellant can be said to be suffer from an error? 21. This Court before considering the said issue needs to refer herein the factual background of the present case as to what warranted the appellant to file a suit before the competent Court of jurisdiction by filing an application under the provision of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 22. In support of his contention, the petitioner-appellant has adduced two witnesses including himself as PW1. He has also produced some documents which have been marked as exhibits which are as under: Ext.1 is the School certificate for non-attendance of petitioner’s son Shivansh Sinha, Ext.2 is the certified copy of order sheet of complaint case no.1434 of 2023, Ext.3 is the certified copy of plaint petition of complaint case no. 1434/23, Ext.4 to 4/1 are certified copy of deposition of Triyugi Modi and Murlidhar Burnwal in Complaint Case No.1434/23, Copy of ITR of petitioner for the Assessment Year 2022-23 is marked ‘X’ for identification, Copy of School Fee receipts are marked “X/1 to X/7 for identification, copy of admission fee receipt is marked as X/8 for identification, copy of school fee receipts are marked as X/9 to X/14 for identification and copy of book purchase receipt is marked as X/15 for identification. 23. On the other hand, the respondents have adduced only one witness, i.e., the respondent no.1-Baleshwar Prasad himself has been examined as DW1 and produced some documentary evidence which have been marked exhibits as under: Ext.-A is the certified copy of FIR of Saraidhela PS Case No.107/22, Ext.- B is the certified copy of charge-sheet of Saraidhela PS Case No.107/22, Ext.-C is certified copy of cognizance order in Saraidhela PS Case No.107/22, Ext.-D is Bonafide certificate and copy of bond paper is marked as ‘Y’ for identification. 24. 24. The learned Family Judge on consideration of the evidence of the witnesses and on consideration of the issue of welfare of the minor has dismissed the suit against which the present appeal based upon the grounds agitated on behalf of the parties as referred hereinabove. 25. This Court before considering the aforesaid rival submission and propriety of the impugned judgment needs to discuss herein the relevant part of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties as also to refer the statutory provision as provided under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and as also the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 26. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with natural guardian of a Hindu minor, Section 9 thereof deals with the testamentary guardians and their powers and Section 13 deals with the provision of welfare of the minor to be paramount consideration. For ready reference, these provisions are quoted as under: "6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.--The natural guardians of a Hindu minor; in respect of the minor’s person as well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are-- (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl-- the father, and after him, the mother: provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother; (b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl--the mother, and after her, the father; (c) in the case of a married girl--the husband: Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section-- (a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or (b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi). Explanation.--In this section, the expressions "father" and "mother" do not include a step-father and a step- mother. 9. Testamentary guardians and their powers.--(1) A Hindu father entitled to act as the natural guardian of his minor legitimate children may, by will appoint a guardian for any of them in respect of the minor’s person or in respect of the minor’s property (other than the undivided interest referred to in section 12) or in respect of both. 9. Testamentary guardians and their powers.--(1) A Hindu father entitled to act as the natural guardian of his minor legitimate children may, by will appoint a guardian for any of them in respect of the minor’s person or in respect of the minor’s property (other than the undivided interest referred to in section 12) or in respect of both. (2) An appointment made under sub-section (1) shall have no effect if the father predeceases the mother, but shall revive if the mother dies without appointing, by will, any person as guardian. (3) A Hindu widow entitled to act as the natural guardian of her minor legitimate children, and a Hindu mother entitled to act as the natural guardian of her minor legitimate children by reason of the fact that the father has become disentitled to act as such, may, by will, appoint a guardian for any of them in respect of the minor’s person or in respect of the minor’s property (other than the undivided interest referred to in section 12) or in respect of both. (4) A Hindu mother entitled to act as the natural guardian of her minor illegitimate children may; by will, appoint a guardian for any of them in respect of the minor’s person or in respect of the minor’s property or in respect of both. (5) The guardian so appointed by will has the right to act as the minor’s guardian after the death of the minor’s father or mother, as the case may be, and to exercise all the rights of a natural guardian under this Act to such extent and subject to such restrictions, if any, as are specified in this Act and in the will. (6) The right of the guardian so appointed by will shall, where the minor is a girl, cease on her marriage. 13. Welfare of minor to be paramount consideration.-- (1) In the appointment of declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. (2) No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor." 27. It needs to refer herein that the word “after? (2) No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor." 27. It needs to refer herein that the word “after? as used in Section 6(a) can be construed so as to save it from being unconstitutional the presumption being that the legislature acted in accordance with the constitution. Moreover, when Sections 4 and 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act are construed harmoniously the word “after? can be understood to mean in the absence of, thereby referring to father’s absence from the care of the minor’s property or person for any reason whatever. 28. It is evident from the mandate of the said Statute that although the father has been made natural guardian but how to make balance in awarding the custody of the minor, the wellbeing consideration even in the Statute has been mandated by inserting the provisions under section 13 thereof. 29. It is evident from Section 13 that while appointing any person as guardian of a Hindu minor the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor and no person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor. 30. Section 13 of the Act of 1956 is very specific that there cannot be compromise on the issue of the welfare of the minor even though the father is natural guardian in view of the provision of section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 31. 30. Section 13 of the Act of 1956 is very specific that there cannot be compromise on the issue of the welfare of the minor even though the father is natural guardian in view of the provision of section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 31. The relevance of provision of section 13 of the Act of 1956 has got bearing in the matter of custody of the minor if the sub-section 2 of section 13 will be taken into consideration wherein the word starts “No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the Court is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for the welfare of the minor”, meaning thereby, it is onus upon the Court to come to the satisfaction by making out a concrete opinion regarding the issue of the welfare of the minor. 32. The law, therefore, is well settled that even though the father is the natural guardian as stipulated in the statute but the paramount consideration in the matter of handing over the custody of the child is welfare of the child. 33. The law relating to custody of minors has received an exhaustive consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a series of pronouncements. In the case of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42 the principles of English and American law in this regard were considered by Hon’ble Apex Court to hold that the legal position in India is not in any way different. Noticing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saraswatibai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved [AIR 1941 Bom 103], Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973) 1 SCC 840 and Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka (1982) 2 SCC 544, the Hon’ble Apex eventually concluded in paras 50 and 51 which reads as under: "50. [T]hat when the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. The court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case [Mausami Moitra (2025:JHHC:15912- DB ) Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673 ], the court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others. 51. The word „welfare? used in Section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents and guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases." 34. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that while considering the issue of custody of the minor child the court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. Further it has been held that the Court should not emphasis only on what the parties say rather the welfare of the minor should be paramount consideration. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court has opined that the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. 34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment interpreted the word „welfare? used in Section 13 of the Act and has observed that it must be taken in its widest sense, though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents and guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its “parens patriae jurisdiction” arising in such cases. 35. 35. It needs to refer herein that in child custody matters, the court’s "parens patriae" jurisdiction empowers the Court to act as a guardian for the child, prioritizing their best interests above all else. This principle, allows the court to intervene and make decisions that protect the child’s welfare, even if it means overriding the wishes of the parents or guardians. 36. In the case of Nil Ratan Kundu v Abhijit Kundu, 2008 (9) SCC 413 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in deciding a difficult and complex question as to the custody of a minor, a court of law should keep in mind the relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a human problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the court is exercising “parens patriae jurisdiction” and is expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. 36. In the case of Yashita Sahu v State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded that the welfare of the child is paramount in matters relating to custody. In this context, we may refer to Para 22 thereof, which reads as follows: 22. A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every reunion may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what matter the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights.’ 37. In the case of Gaytri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla, (2012) 12 SCC 471 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents which is the determining factor for deciding the question of custody and the question of welfare of the child has to be considered in the context of the facts of each case and decided cases on the issue may not be appropriate to be considered as binding precedents. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: 14. From the above it follows that an order of custody of minor children either under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is required to be made by the court treating the interest and welfare of the minor to be of paramount importance. It is not the better right of either parent that would require adjudication while deciding their entitlement to custody. It is not the better right of either parent 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 parent concerned to take care of the child 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. What must be emphasised is that while all other factors are undoubtedly relevant, it is the desire, interest and welfare of the minor which is the crucial and ultimate consideration that must guide the determination required to be made by the court. 38. It is settled position of law that there cannot be any straitjacket formula in the matters of custody. “Welfare of the child” is of paramount importance, reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kumar Das v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 10 SCC 588 . 39. In the case of Shazia Aman Khan v. State of Orissa, (2024) 7 SCC 564 the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring the ratio of Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413 has observed that welfare of the children is to be seen and not the rights of the parties, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: 19. In Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu [Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413 ], this Court laid down the principles governing custody of minor children and held that welfare of the children is to be seen and not the rights of the parties by observing as under : (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 52 & 55) “Principles governing custody of minor children 52. In our judgment, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well-settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to the custody of minor, a court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a human problem and is required to be solved with human touch. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to the custody of minor, a court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a human problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. *** 55. We are unable to appreciate the approach of the courts below. This Court in a catena of decisions has held that the controlling consideration governing the custody of children is the welfare of children and not the right of their parents.” (emphasis supplied) 21. This Court in Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma [Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, (2015) 8 SCC 318 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 87], opined that the child is not a chattel or ball that it is bounced to and fro. Welfare of the child is the focal point. Relevant lines from para 18 are reproduced hereunder : (SCC p. 328) “18. … There can be no cavil that when a court is confronted by conflicting claims of custody there are no rights of the parents which have to be enforced; the child is not a chattel or a ball that is bounced to and fro the parents. It is only the child’s welfare which is the focal point for consideration. Parliament rightly thinks that the custody of a child less than five years of age should ordinarily be with the mother and this expectation can be deviated from only for strong reasons.” 20. It is only the child’s welfare which is the focal point for consideration. Parliament rightly thinks that the custody of a child less than five years of age should ordinarily be with the mother and this expectation can be deviated from only for strong reasons.” 20. This Court has consistently held that welfare of the child is of paramount consideration and not personal law and statute. In Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon [Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon, (2010) 14 SCC 274 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 948], this Court held as under : (SCC p. 282, para 19) “19. The statutory provisions dealing with the custody of the child under any personal law cannot and must not supersede the paramount consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. In fact, no statute on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the welfare of the minor.” 22. Another principle of law which is settled with reference to custody of the child is the wish of the child, if she is capable of. Reference Gowda v. State can of be made to Rohith Thammana Karnataka [Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 20 SCC 550 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937] case. It was held as under : (SCC para 18) “18. We have stated earlier that the question „what is the wish/desire of the child? can be ascertained through interaction, but then, the question as to „what would be the best interest of the child? is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. A careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment would, however, reveal that even after identifying the said question rightly the High Court had swayed away from the said point and entered into consideration of certain aspects not relevant for the said purpose. We will explain the raison d'etre for the said remark.” 40. Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that the consideration governing the custody of children is the welfare of the children” and not the rights of the parties.” Further, the welfare of child is determined neither by economic affluence nor a deep mental or emotional concern for the well-being of the child. The answer depends on the balancing of all these factors and determining what is best for child’s total well-being. 41. The answer depends on the balancing of all these factors and determining what is best for child’s total well-being. 41. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now adverting to the factual aspect of the present case in order to asses as to the whether the findings so recorded by the learned Family Judge can be said to suffer from an error by giving go by to the mandate of section of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and further as to whether while forming an opinion not to hand over the custody of the minor, the learned Family Judge has committed an error by giving go by to the provision of sub-section 2 of section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 42. This Court while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the issue of perversity needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. 43. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [ (2001) 1 SCC 501 ] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry’s (Calcutta) Employees’ Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1966 Cal 31 ] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. 25. In Parry’s (Calcutta) Employees’ Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1966 Cal 31 ] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341 ] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.” 44. 5. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.” 44. This Court in order to consider the aforesaid issue once again considering the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties which is evident from the testimony of PW1, the petitioner-father, who has made out a case having no welfare of the minor by taking the reason that the minor was admitted in Delhi Public School, Dhanbad but the respondents are not sending him to the said School and therefore as guardian he is entitled for the custody of his son. He has been cross-examined wherein he has stated that the marriage was solemnized on 04.12.2017 and he is doing business of Manihari and he is paying income tax for last one year. He has deposed that his mother had died and his father is 84 years old. His annual income is Rs. 4 lakhs. He has also filed income tax return. The reference of the institution of the case by the respondent no.1 has also been made being Saraidhela PS Case No.107 of 2022 under section 306 of the IPC against him and in this case, he had gone to jail. The issue of demand of dowry although has been denied as also factum of torture upon his wife has also been denied. The fact about Rs.10 lakhs deposited in the name of his wife in SBI Life to which he has given an application to take the said amount has been admitted. 45. PW2, the father of the petitioner has deposed that at the time of death of his daughter-in-law (wife of the petitioner) the age of his grandson (minor) was four years. 46. The respondent no.1 as DW 1 has deposed that at the time of marriage the mother of the minor was teacher in the Central School. His daughter was tortured physically and mentally due to demand of her salary. The same was reported by him to the concerned police station and thereafter his daughter and petitioner were started living separately. Subsequently, his daughter had committed suicide and in consequence thereof a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner being Saraidhela PS Case No.107 of 2022 under section 306 IPC. The same was reported by him to the concerned police station and thereafter his daughter and petitioner were started living separately. Subsequently, his daughter had committed suicide and in consequence thereof a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner being Saraidhela PS Case No.107 of 2022 under section 306 IPC. He has been cross-examined and has deposed that he is doing business of a Kirana Shop. The factum of prior to marriage of his younger son marriage of his daughter with the petitioner he has stated that he came to know about the said fact after the solemnization of marriage. He has admitted that the marriage of the petitioner with his daughter was not solemnized as per the will. 47. The learned Family Judge based upon the aforesaid deposition has first answered the issue nos. III and IV, i.e., who will be the guardian of the ward and who will serve the welfare of the ward. 48. The learned Family Judge has considered the issue of title of guardian of the ward and his custody as also considered the implication of section 4(b) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and section 13 thereof. The learned Family Judge has also referred while considering the issue of custody of the minor that what matter is to be considered by the Court in appointing the guardian. 49. The learned Family Judge has considered the issue in the light of the mandate of section 13 wherein the paramount bearing of the custody of the minor and the welfare of the minor has been mentioned. The learned Family Judge has also taken into consideration the entire aspects of the matter regarding the issue of institution of an FIR under section 306 IPC and the issue of demand of dowry of Rs.6 lakhs. The issue has also been taken into consideration by the learned Family Judge that after the marriage the relationship between the petitioner and his wife got strained for which an information was also given to the concerned police station by the wife where both spouses appeared and executed a bond and decided to reside separately. The said document has been marked as ‘Y’ for identification. 50. The said document has been marked as ‘Y’ for identification. 50. The learned Family Judge based upon the aforesaid ground has come to a prima-facie opinion that the wife of the petitioner was subjected to cruelty in her in-laws’ house and relationship between the parties was not cordial since, both spouses started living separately since 06.03.2022 and, in the meanwhile, the wife of the petitioner has committed suicide. At that time, the age of the minor son of the parties was about four years and since then, he is residing with his maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother (Nana & Nani)-the respondents herein. 51. The learned Family Judge in the aforesaid pretext has considered the fact that since the minor is living with his maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother and at that time, the age of the minor was four years and he is studying in the School has also been taken into consideration. The learned Family Judge has also taken into consideration that mother of the petitioner had died earlier and father of the petitioner is aged about 84 years. It has come in the evidence that after the mother of the petitioner /husband there is no one in the family of the petitioner to take care of the minor. 52. The learned Family Judge has also taken into consideration based upon the evidence that the minor child is living in a joint family along with his maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother (Nana and Nani) whereas in the family of the petitioner there is no one to take care of the minor child. Thereafter, the learned Family Judge after taking into consideration of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu vrs. Sri Harbanse Singh Sandhu” reported in AIR 1984 SC 1224 ; “Goverdhan Lal vrs. Gajendra Kumar ” reported in AIR 2002 Raj 148 ; and a judgment of this High Court in the case of “Suman Kumari vrs. Sanjay Kumar” reported in 2023(4) JLJR 56 has passed the impugned judgment by dismissing the suit. 53. Since we have considered the statutory provision as contained under section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 that has been taken into consideration by the learned Family Judge for the purpose of consideration of the issue as to with whom the welfare of the minor child is to be secured. 54. 53. Since we have considered the statutory provision as contained under section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 that has been taken into consideration by the learned Family Judge for the purpose of consideration of the issue as to with whom the welfare of the minor child is to be secured. 54. There is no denial of the fact that the father is the natural guardian as stipulated in the statute but the paramount consideration in the matter of handing over the custody of the child is “welfare of the child” as per the settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and same has been referred in the preceding paragraph. 55. The learned Family Judge based upon the evidences as referred hereinabove has considered the issue in the touch stone of the implication of section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 56. Section 13 of the Act of 1956 has also been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred hereinabove. This Court, considering the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and keeping the mandate/implication of section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is of the view that while dismissing the suit denying the custody of the minor child in favour of the petitioner- appellant the judgment passed in Original suit No.1136 of 2022 cannot be said to be perverse and suffer from an error. 57. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 14.11.2024 and the decree dated 23.11.2024 passed in Original Suit No.1136 of 2022 by the learned Family Judge need no interference. 58. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 59. Consequently, the interlocutory application being I.A No.9580 of 2025 stands dismissed. 60. Pending I.As, if any, also stands disposed of.