JUDGMENT : GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard the appellant/husband, who is appearing as party-in-person and Sri K.V.Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent/wife. 2. The present Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned II Additional Family Court-cum-II Additional District Judge at Mechal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal in G.W.O.P.No.788 of 2014 dated 31.10.2022 in dismissing the petition filed under Section 7 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the appellant/petitioner requesting for the custody of the minor child. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the GWOP are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 30.05.2010, that the appellant and respondent lived together from June, 2010 to December, 2012 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a baby boy on 25.05.2012. 4. It was contended in the OP that from January, 2013, the respondent/wife deserted the appellant and from November, 2013, there was no communication with the respondent and she was staying with their son at her parents’ house without the consent of appellant. The appellant tried for reconciliation with the help of relatives, but in vain. On the other hand, the respondent filed a dowry harassment case against the appellant and his parents. The appellant herein filed a Pre-Litigation case vide PLC No.80 of 2014 before the Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District intending to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. However, after the respondent filed a Domestic Violence Case against him, the appellant has given up the Pre-Litigation Case. 5. The appellant contends that the respondent has not taken care of the minor ward and though the appellant requested the respondent for extension of maternity leave, since she was pursuing the Post Graduate at Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad at that time and take care of the child till he attains six months, the same was refused by the wife. The appellant also engaged the services of a Maid for the welfare of the child, and despite the same, the respondent started arguing with the appellant on trivial matters and used to threaten to commit suicide along with the boy. In spite of repeated requests, the respondent did not respond to his calls and once she went to Hussain Sagar Lake to commit suicide along with the boy, which shows her instability. 6. In spite of repeated requests, the respondent did not respond to his calls and once she went to Hussain Sagar Lake to commit suicide along with the boy, which shows her instability. 6. It is also contended that the respondent physically abused the appellant and slapped the boy showing her frustration that she has to take care of the child by devoting time and money. The appellant contends that when the respondent refused to take care of the child, he has availed leaves to take care of the respondent after her delivery and managed the child from six months to one year age. Since, the respondent/wife is not in a position to take care of the child, the appellant being father is ready to look after the child and his wife and as such, he filed the petition requesting for custody of the minor ward. 7. On the other hand, the respondent/wife filed counter in the GWOP stating that the appellant filed the said OP only to overcome the criminal case filed by her and to protect his skin. It was further averred in the counter that the child was taken by her parents from the birth while the appellant and his parents on several occasions beat the infant, and that she was not allowed to serve the child when she was on duty at the Hospital and the child was not given proper care. 8. It was further contended in the counter that that the appellant used to work in Dr.Reddy Labs, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and he used to leave for office at 8:00 A.M. and return by 7:00 P.M., so did the parents of appellant as they were employees in the Postal Department. Since there is no one to take care of the child, she was forced to avail leave for taking care of the child. The respondent further contended that she was physically abused by her husband and in-laws whenever she informed of the difficulties. 9. It was further averred that finally she was driven out of the house along with her son by the appellant and his parents during March, 2013 and she was not allowed into the house and the appellant also threatened to commit suicide. She further contended that the parents of the appellant are not satisfied with the dowry amount given and started demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. She further contended that the parents of the appellant are not satisfied with the dowry amount given and started demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is further contended that she was forced to attend household works, cooking and washing clothes and she was not treated properly for one reason or the other. 10. Therefore, the respondent contended that there is risk and danger to the life of the minor ward in the hands of the appellant and her in-laws, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the GWOP filed by the appellant. 11. The learned Trial Court examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-20 on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the respondent, the R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-23 were marked. 12. Basing on the material available on record, the learned Trial Court framed the following point for consideration: “Whether the petitioner being the natural father or the respondent being the natural mother are entitled for the custody of the child?” 13. The learned Trial Court while considering the evidence on record, held that though the father is meeting the child by virtue of visitation rights, that would barely recognized because it only keeps the relationship alive but the same would not help in keeping the bonding between the father and child. 14. The learned Trial Court recorded that before pronouncement of the orders, the learned Judge met the child in the Chambers and tried to know the mental situation and the child’s love and affection towards his father, and after speaking with the child, learned Judge could understand that the child was reluctant to join his father, which can be expected from a boy, who lived with his mother for 10 years and that the attitude and language of the boy clearly shows that the boy just remembered his father as a father and not more than that. 15. While appreciating the evidence of P.W.1, the learned Trial Court held that the appellant, being the natural father of the child, can take care of the child. The learned Trial Court also held that though P.W.1 is Doctor, he appears to be not in active practice and appears to have engaged with a Company, and his parents are employees while the respondent is a Pediatrician. When all of them are employees, possibility of looking after the child would be remote. 16. The learned Trial Court also held that though P.W.1 is Doctor, he appears to be not in active practice and appears to have engaged with a Company, and his parents are employees while the respondent is a Pediatrician. When all of them are employees, possibility of looking after the child would be remote. 16. Learned Trial Court recorded that after P.W.1 and R.W.1 separated, the child was living with his mother since 2012. Obviously the bonding of the child with the mother would be more. As the provisions of the Act states, when the child is aged less than 5 years, the custodian would be mother. Since the child in the present case is aged about 10 years, it is almost 10 years for attaining his majority and understands the situation of the family. Further, the appellant never complained about the poor status of the child as he was visiting the child weekly. 17. Learned Trial Court further held that there appear no major complaints at the end of both parties and there is no major reason for rejecting the custody of the child with the appellant. 18. Based on the citations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Trial Court held that it is not the better finances of either parent that would require adjudication while deciding their entitlement to the custody, but also their love and affection towards the child, however, the final rider would be paramount consideration of the interest of child. Therefore, in the interest of child, the learned Trial Court restricted the custody of child to one parent i.e. to live with the mother, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the appellant. 19. Appellant contended that the learned Trial Court examined the minor child in a mechanical manner rather than setting a scheme of particulars to allow the appellant/father to have shared parenting rights to allow the appellant and minor son to spend quality time with each other keeping in view the welfare of the minor son. 20. The appellant vehemently contended that the allegations made by the respondent were neither established nor proved, however, the learned Trial Court deprived the appellant of shared parenting rights and the same is not in the welfare of the child, since the minor son is not being given opportunity to know his own father. 21. 20. The appellant vehemently contended that the allegations made by the respondent were neither established nor proved, however, the learned Trial Court deprived the appellant of shared parenting rights and the same is not in the welfare of the child, since the minor son is not being given opportunity to know his own father. 21. The appellant further contended that the minor child needs love and affection of both parents equally and the appellant may not be merely a guest in minor son’s life, and that the learned Trial Court did not consider that both parents can take care of the minor child by way of shared parenting since both appellant and respondent live and reside merely 1.5 K.Ms. away from each other. 22. The appellant further contended that the learned Trial Court did not consider that the appellant has time to spend weekends with the minor child since he works for 5 days in a week unlike unusual working hours of the respondent, who as a Doctor may be required to attend to mid-night urgencies and that apart, the parents of the appellant are willing to take care of the minor child apart from appellant’s personal attention. 23. The appellant thereby sought to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and grant shared custody of the minor child to the appellant, being natural guardian and primary custodial parent. 24. In support of his contentions, the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rohith Thammana Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka and others , 2022 SCC Online SC 937, Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan and others , (2020) 3 SCC 67 and Vivek Singh Vs. Romani Singh , (2017) 3 SCC 231 . 25. On the other hand, Sri K.V.Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned Trial Court, having interacted with the minor child, did not grant custody of the minor child, but allowed only visitation rights to the appellant. 26. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that at the time of filing of GWOP in the learned Trial Court, the child was aged 2½ years and was aged 10 years when the orders were passed in the learned Trial Court, and now the child is 13 years old. 27. 26. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that at the time of filing of GWOP in the learned Trial Court, the child was aged 2½ years and was aged 10 years when the orders were passed in the learned Trial Court, and now the child is 13 years old. 27. It is further contended that the appellant in the present Appeal is seeking permanent custody of the child and in the alternative, shared parenting plan and temporary custody of the child on every 2 nd and 4 th weekend i.e. Saturday morning to Sunday evening every month and other relief, which was not originally sought for in the very GWOP filed before the learned Trial Court. 28. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the learned Trial Court, after considering the welfare of the child as paramount interest, rightly dismissed the GWOP filed by the appellant, and that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court had not only considered the wish and interest of the child, but considered the welfare of the child also. 29. It is further contended that as per the catena of judgments, the shared custody or parenting would amount to completely diverging the child to almost new and novice atmosphere at the father’s place as he hardly knows anybody there in the house of the father, which is grossly against the wish and interest of the child. 30. Learned counsel for the respondent therefore contends that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is legal and valid, and does not call for any interference by this Court. 31. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments which are considered by the learned Trial Court. 32. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions raised by either parties, and perused the record. 33. The facts reveal that the marriage between the parties as well as birth of the child is not in dispute. However, both the parents, being highly educated, failed to lead a peaceful matrimonial life and spoiled their relationship resulting in initiation of dissolution of marriage proceedings, which partly affects the mindset of the innocent child. 34. However, it is evident from the submissions made by the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that there are contentious issues between the parties regarding the appellant sharing the maintenance/educational expenses of the minor child. 35. 34. However, it is evident from the submissions made by the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that there are contentious issues between the parties regarding the appellant sharing the maintenance/educational expenses of the minor child. 35. During pendency of the proceedings, after hearing the submissions made by the appellant in-person, this Court recorded that the respondent is not only unreasonable but also obstinate, and that the ground taken by the respondent to oppose the shared custody sought by the appellant is that the child has been residing with the respondent for the past 12 years. 36. During the course of proceedings, we have observed that the respondent filed I.A.No.6 of 2025, after pendency of the Appeal for almost two years, with a prayer for fixing a date for an interaction of this Court with the child for the purpose of ascertaining the preference of the child with respect to the custody or visitation. We, however, held that pending hearing of the Appeal, no useful purpose would be served by such an interaction since the child has admittedly been living with the respondent for the past 12 years and from all the attending facts and circumstances, there is every likelihood of the child being tutored by the respondent in terms of the child’s answers. This Court also recorded that we are unable to understand the stubborn attitude of the respondent even in terms of the suggestion of increasing the visitation rights of the appellant pending hearing of the Appeal. 37. We have also recorded that the learned counsel for the respondent has been objecting to each and every prayer of the appellant at every stage of the Appeal and that the respondent is unwilling to have shared custody of the child since it would not be in the best interest of the child to be removed from the respondent’s custody and given to the appellant. 38. Further, during the course of proceedings, we have tried our best to arrive at some sort of a mutually acceptable solution. This Court also recorded that both the parties are Doctors and surprised to see the continuous resistance on the part of the respondent and opposing the shared custody of the child with the appellant, who is also a natural father and guardian. 39. This Court also recorded that both the parties are Doctors and surprised to see the continuous resistance on the part of the respondent and opposing the shared custody of the child with the appellant, who is also a natural father and guardian. 39. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 lays down the principles on which custody disputes are to be decided. Section 6 and 13 of the said Act enumerates the matters which need to be considered by the Court in appointing guardian and among others, enshrines the principle of welfare of the minor child. 40. Various findings of the learned Trial Court reflects that it was prejudiced with the interaction of the child in the Chambers, who appears to have been tutored by the respondent having been in the guardianship of the mother for a considerable time. Though several allegations are not established, the learned Trial Court came to conclusion that the best interest of the child would be restricting the custody in favour of the mother only. The learned Trial Court gave a finding that answers from a boy who lived with his mother for 10 years are expected, but his attitude and language clearly shows that he just remember his father as a father and not more than that. The said observation would give rise for a denial of reasonable opportunity in favour of the father/appellant. 41. The learned Trial Court having held that the appellant and respondent had hardly lived together for about 3 years and after one year of the marriage, the child was born. After the birth of the child, the wife remained at her parents’ house. Therefore, father’s legitimate right for spending time with the child has not been considered. 42. The appellant repeatedly contended that in the best interest of the child, being a biological father, prayed for shared custody of the boy. The contention of the appellant appears to be bona fide. Since he has been denied access of the child despite being a biological father, he consistently sought custody of the child in good faith and offered to play a protective and pivotal role in the growth of the child, whereas the respondent appears to have painted a negative picture towards the appellant in the mind of the boy. Since he has been denied access of the child despite being a biological father, he consistently sought custody of the child in good faith and offered to play a protective and pivotal role in the growth of the child, whereas the respondent appears to have painted a negative picture towards the appellant in the mind of the boy. It is the fundamental right of every child and parents that they are entitled to equal love and affection by spending a quiet time with paternal and material grandparents and involving bonding towards both families, which may also result in getting the couple united leaving the differences apart. 43. In Yashita Sahu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “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.” 44. In Vivek Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “A child, who has not seen, experienced or lived the comfort of the company of the mother is, naturally, not in a position to comprehend that the grass on the other side may turn out to be greener. Only when she is exposed to that environment of living with her mother, that she would be in a position to properly evaluate as to whether her welfare lies more in the company of her mother or in the company of her father.” 45. Considering the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, though relationship of the parents is ruined and since they are living separately for quite some time, the life of only son, who was born out of their wedlock, has become more and more miserable. 46. Keeping in view the welfare of the child, more particularly, in a case of this nature where the child has suffered on account of strained relationship between the biological parents and ideally needs the company of both parents in order to ensure that the child grows and develops in best environment, the parents’ paramount interest must be to ensure that the child is least affected by their personal disputes. The separation of spouses on children has psychological and emotional effect, but the right of the child should always be protected and the parents should see that the child has to be grown in a peaceful and adornment atmosphere, to be the future responsible citizen of this country. Regular family, affectionate relationship will have a positive impact on the child growth. 47. Usually, the parents pray for children for shaping them as responsible citizens towards the Society and Country at large. For shaping such a sense of responsible citizens, who are the future citizens of the Nation, the contribution of the parents is of paramount criteria, since the present child links to the future of the Nation and the children are treasures of their parents. 48. Therefore, considering the various aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate various aspects, and was prejudiced by its interaction with the child without proving the allegations leveled against the appellant. 49. Accordingly, Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court in G.W.O.P.No.788 of 2014 and allow the Appeal granting shared custody of the boy. Both the parents shall endeavor to look after the welfare of the child leaving apart their personal egos/misunderstandings. 50. This Court directs that, notwithstanding the dissolution of their matrimonial relationship, both parents shall recognize that the welfare of the minor child is of paramount importance and that the child is entitled to receive love, affection, moral guidance and emotional security from both parents equally. Accordingly, the parties shall treat shared custody not as a matter of personal convenience or negotiation, but as a mandatory, child- centred obligation. Each parent shall ensure that the child enjoys regular, meaningful and unhindered parenting time with the other, without interference, bitterness or attempts to influence the child’s mind. 51. The parents shall further share responsibilities relating to the child’s upbringing in a balanced and transparent manner, including but not limited to, timely payment of school fees and educational expenses, adherence to an agreed parenting-time schedule, provision of adequate interaction with grandparents and extended family on both sides, joint decision-making on matters of health, schooling and extracurricular activities, and reasonable contributions towards gifts, celebrations and personal requirements of the child. The Court makes it clear that compliance with these duties is essential to safeguard the child’s physical, emotional and psychological well-being, and that neither parent shall strictly allow their personal disputes to obstruct or compromise the child’s best interests in any manner. 52. F.C.A.No.40 of 2023 is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.