ORDER : N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. These appeals are filed against two orders, which are verbatim the same, but which have been passed on an application filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act and also an on an application filed under Section 26 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT by the husband in the joint proceedings which had been initiated by husband and wife under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. 2. The Family Court by the impugned orders has permitted the husband to keep the custody of the minor girl and has also directed the wife not to take away the custody of the minor girl without following due process of law. 3. The following facts are not in dispute: i. On 14.2.2021, the marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent. ii. On 10.9.2021, a baby girl who was, named as Tejaswi, was born out of this wedlock. iii. On 3.3.2023, due to marital discord, the husband and wife filed a petition under Section 13B of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT seeking to dissolve their marriage by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. In this petition filed under Section 13B, as regards the custody of the minor child, who was aged about 2 years as on the date of filing of 13B petition, it was stated as follows: “3. The parties to the petition submit that they have one child out of their wedlock named Tejaswi on date:- 10.9.2021 and the permanent custody of child will be with petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.1 have visiting rights of minor daughter whenever both parties convenient and petitioner no.2 is not pregnant at present.” iv. It is also admitted in the said petition that the husband and the wife were living separately since 10.1.2022 and both of them had stated that no order regarding maintenance and/or alimony was necessary. v. It was also stated that either of the parties would not claim any future maintenance or alimony mutually and it was also admitted that the articles/ ornaments of each other were handed over to each of them and there was no dispute regarding custody of any articles. vi. v. It was also stated that either of the parties would not claim any future maintenance or alimony mutually and it was also admitted that the articles/ ornaments of each other were handed over to each of them and there was no dispute regarding custody of any articles. vi. After this petition under Section 13B was filed, things however overtook a turn for worse and complaints were lodged by the wife alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in the month of July 2023 and in the same month, there was also a complaint filed by the brother of the husband, complaining that the wife had committed a theft. vii. In the month of July 2023, a petition seeking for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus was also filed by the wife before this High Court and it is the case of the husband that the wife during the pendency of this petition took custody of the child illegally and went to West Bengal. viii. In the month of August 2023, a complaint was given by the wife that the husband had forcibly taken the custody of the child. This assertion is however refuted by the husband. The husband and his brother have also initiated criminal proceedings against the wife in Kolkata between August 2023 and December 2023 and the same are pending. ix. On 16.12.2023, the first date of hearing for conciliation of the petition filed under Section 13B was scheduled. However, in the same month, it is alleged that the husband took the child with the permission of the wife to Ahmedabad and a police complaint was also lodged by the wife contending that the custody of the child was forcibly taken by the husband. x. In January 2024, the wife initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and she also initiated proceedings in Calcutta High Court for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. In these proceedings, the Calcutta Court took note of the fact that the husband and wife had filed a petition under Section 13B, in which the question of custody was also a part of the proceedings and directed the husband to handover the custody of the child to the wife after conclusion of 13B proceedings and closed the proceedings. In these proceedings, the Calcutta Court took note of the fact that the husband and wife had filed a petition under Section 13B, in which the question of custody was also a part of the proceedings and directed the husband to handover the custody of the child to the wife after conclusion of 13B proceedings and closed the proceedings. The relevant portion of the order of the Kolkata High Court passed in WPA (H) 2 of 2024 on 15.01.2024 reads as follows: "It is not in dispute that the settlement forming part of Section 13B petition, gives custody right to the mother and we direct the private respondent to hand over custody of the child to the mother soon after the proceeding under Section 13B is completed." xi. On 15.2.2024, an application was filed by the husband for interim custody of the minor daughter in the proceedings that had been jointly initiated by the husband and wife for dissolution of marriage my mutual consent, i.e., the S.13B proceedings. xii. On 16.02.2024, the Kolkata High Court disposed off the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the wife in the following terms: "5. For the present, we are not anticipating dismissal of the petition under Section 13(b) and in the event 13B application is ultimately allowed, it may bring hiatus to all the issues. In the event the settlement agreement which also mentions custody of the child is not finally resolved in the said proceeding, it would be open for the writ petitioner to seek custody of the child in accordance with law as we are not inclined to enter into the merits of the custody of the child in view of pendency of the application under Section 13(B) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ." xiii. On 21.2.2024, i.e., 6 days after filing of the application for interim custody in the S. 13B proceedings, the husband proceeded to file a petition under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking for custody of the minor child. xiv. On 22.2.2024, i.e. a day after the application was filed under Section 7 of the G & WC Act, the Family Court proceeded to pass two identical orders on the application for interim custody in 13B proceedings and also on the application filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. xiv. On 22.2.2024, i.e. a day after the application was filed under Section 7 of the G & WC Act, the Family Court proceeded to pass two identical orders on the application for interim custody in 13B proceedings and also on the application filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. The Family Court in both these proceedings has passed an order, the operative portion of which reads as follows: Order in C.M.A. 49 of 2024 “[1]The husband is permitted to keep the custody of the minor girl- Tejaswi in the welfare and paramount interest of the minor girl. [2] The wife is hereby directed not to take away the custody of the minor girl without following due process of law. [3] There shall be no order as to costs.” Order in F.S. No.571 of 2023 “[1]The husband is permitted to keep the custody of the minor girl- Tejaswi in the welfare and paramount interest of the minor girl. [2] The wife is hereby directed not to take away the custody of the minor girl without following due process of law. [3] There shall be no order as to costs.” xv. It may be pertinent to state here that the wife had also initiated proceedings before the Apex Court for transfer of the proceedings which was initiated under Section 13B of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT as well as under Sections 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, from the Court at Ahmedabad to the Courts at Calcutta. xvi. The Supreme Court had initially passed an interim order in the transfer petition, staying all further proceedings, but ultimately dismissed the transfer petition. xvii. The wife preferred Special Civil Application No.10450 of 2024 before this Court challenging the aforementioned orders dated 22.02.202 passed by the Family Court on the interim custody of the minor girl. xviii. In these proceedings, the husband took up the contention that the Special Civil Application filed by the wife was not maintainable and she was required to file an appeal and placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court. xix. The learned Single Judge of this Court thereafter proceeded to pass the following order on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the wife:- “1. On 19.11.2024, Ms. xix. The learned Single Judge of this Court thereafter proceeded to pass the following order on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the wife:- “1. On 19.11.2024, Ms. Archana R. Acharya, learned advocate on record for the respondent, had vehemently objected to maintainability of petition in light of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 08.10.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1469 of 2024, and has submitted that against impugned order of handing over custody of child passed by the Family Court, the appropriate remedy would be to prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The matter was adjourned at the request of learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah to take appropriate instructions. 2. Today, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, after examining the aforesaid decision, under instructions, seeks permission of this court to withdraw the present petition with liberty to prefer an appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner was pursuing the present proceedings under the bonafide belief that a petition would lie, and not an appeal. Now in light of the recent decision, the petitioner would like to prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the impugned order. 3. Considering the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.” xx. Accordingly, pursuant to this order passed in Special Civil Application No.10450 of 2024, the wife has preferred these two appeals challenging the order relating to custody of the minor child. xxi. Since the wife had filed the afore-mentioned Special Civil Application and was prosecuting it till she withdrew the same in order to prefer these appeals, there is a delay in filing in these two appeals and consequently, the applications are made for condonation of delay. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Asim Pandya appearing for the husband opposed the applications filed for condonation of delay on the ground that the statement was made by the wife that she was unaware of the orders passed in the proceedings initiated by the husband under the Guardians and Wards Act was a false statement and in the light of this false statement, the delay cannot be condoned. 5. 5. In our view, this objection of the husband that the delay ought not to have been condoned cannot be entertained especially when it was the case of the husband that the Special Civil Application that had been filed by the wife was not maintainable and the wife was required to prefer an appeal. The wife, who was diligently prosecuting the Special Civil Application, was permitted by this Court to withdraw the Special Civil Application and liberty was reserved to the wife to prefer an appeal. 6. In the light of the liberty granted to the wife, the time consumed in prosecuting the Special Civil Application No.10450 of 2024 will have to be excluded and consequently, the applications which are filed for seeking condonation of delay citing that particular cause will have to be accepted and consequently, the delay caused in filing these appeals is condoned. The Civil Applications for condonation of delay stand DISPOSED OF accordingly. Office to register the First Appeals accordingly. 7. On merits, learned senior counsel appearing for the husband, thereafter raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeals and contended that the question as to whether the appeal was maintainable against the orders granting interim custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act was the subject matter of a litigation in another Division Bench which had directed the matter to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for reference to a larger bench or to a bench of similar strength. 8. It is stated by both the Learned Counsel that pursuant to the said order, the matter was ordered to be listed before the Bench of two Judges and the same was pending consideration. 9. Though elaborate submissions were made by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband and the Learned Counsel appearing for the wife regarding maintainability of the appeals, subsequently, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the husband suggested that it would be in the interest of all the parties concerned if the question regarding the custody of the child is finally decided by the Family Court instead of the question of maintainability or otherwise of the appeals being considered. To this wise and fair suggestion of the Learned Senior counsel appearing for the husband, the learned counsel appearing for the wife also agreed and both the learned counsels opined that it would be in the interest of the husband and the wife and more importantly in the interest of the minor child if the main question regarding custody of the child is decided instead of judicial time being spent on deciding the maintainability of these appeals. 10. We are of the view that this course of action suggested by the learned counsel deserves acceptance as this would result in crux of the issue i.e. the custody of the child will be decided instead of considering arguments regarding the technical aspect of the maintainability of these appeals, which either way, will be considered in the appeal which has been referred to a coordinate Division bench and which is being considered. 11. We are conscious of the fact that the parents are litigating in a long drawn out legal battle over the custody of a child who is just about 4 years old and is forced to face an unnecessary emotional trauma and it would be in the ultimate interest of the child that the question of her custody is decided immediately and hence the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the husband and the learned Counsel appearing for the wife is accepted. 12. Both the learned counsel also admit that presently there is no possibility of the marriage being dissolved by mutual consent, since it is clear that neither of the parties are agreeable to confirm their consent on the expiry of six months as provided under S. 13B of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT . Since the husband and the wife are not in agreement to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, it is obvious that the proceedings that are jointly initiated under Section 13B of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT would be rendered infructuous and will have to be closed for want of consent. 13. Since the husband and the wife are not in agreement to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, it is obvious that the proceedings that are jointly initiated under Section 13B of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT would be rendered infructuous and will have to be closed for want of consent. 13. The Learned Senior learned counsel appearing for the husband, however, fairly submits that the order passed regarding the interim custody of the child in the proceedings under Section 13(b) would not be conclusive even if the proceedings under S. 13B are closed and the question of custody would ultimately have to be decided in the proceedings that the husband had initiated under the Guardians and Wards Act, which would bind the parties. This statement of the learned senior counsel is taken on record and it is hereby made clear that the proceedings initiated under Section 13(b) having been rendered infructuous, the orders passed regarding the interim custody of the child would not bind either of the parties and the question of custody of the minor child would be ultimately decided in the proceedings which are initiated by the husband under the Guardians and Wards Act. 14. In the light of the above, the Family Court, Ahmedabad is directed to consider the proceedings initiated by the husband under the Guardians and Wards Act, i.e., Civil Misc. Application No.49 of 2024, on its merits within a period of EIGHT WEEKS from today. 15. It is made clear that the Family Court, if necessary, shall hear the matter on a day-to-day basis and both, the husband and the wife, shall render their full cooperation for facilitating the disposal of the proceedings within a period of EIGHT WEEKS. Since both the parties are represented by their counsels, they are directed to appear before the Family Court on 28.7.2025 and take further instructions in the matter. 16. In the interregnum, as regards the interim custody of the minor child, Tejasawi, in our view, interest of justice would be served if the wife is given the right of meeting the minor child on every Saturday and Sunday in the office of the District Legal Services Authority (DSLA), Ahmedabad between 3 pm to 5 pm. 17. The wife shall have independent and exclusive interaction with the child. However, it shall be in the presence of the Secretary, DSLA, Ahmedabad. 17. The wife shall have independent and exclusive interaction with the child. However, it shall be in the presence of the Secretary, DSLA, Ahmedabad. The husband is directed to ensure that there is no impediment caused to the interaction between the wife and the child and he shall not make any attempt whatsoever to tutor or prejudice the mind of the child against the mother. 18. Before parting with this case, we would also like to make a few observations, which we hope, would have some effect on the squabbling parents. 19. The husband and wife who are both responsible for the physical and mental growth of the 4-year-old child are undeniably causing intense emotional and mental trauma to the 4-year-old child, who cannot even possibly fathom the prevalent squabbling between her parents. The parents, due to their inter se animosity, are subjecting the child to an unnecessary trauma, which would cause a mental scar on the child for all time to come. Both the husband and the wife should realize that their actions in litigating their marital dispute endlessly would ultimately cause harm to the child. They should keep in mind that their legal battles should not hurt the child either directly or indirectly. It is apparent that the child would become a pawn in this legal battle and would be used as a fodder in the battle between the parents. 20. We earnestly hope that the parents would ensure that the interests of the child are kept at the forefront and the child should be kept immune from the effects of the legal battle which is being fought bitterly amongst the parents. We hope better sense would prevail on them and they will come to a mutually beneficial understanding, at least as far as the custody of the minor child is concerned. 21. The Family Court shall keep in mind that in the custody proceedings, it is only required to examine and adjudicate upon the singular issue before it, which would be the welfare of the child only and it shall take an appropriate decision in this regard accordance with law. 22. 21. The Family Court shall keep in mind that in the custody proceedings, it is only required to examine and adjudicate upon the singular issue before it, which would be the welfare of the child only and it shall take an appropriate decision in this regard accordance with law. 22. The Family Court shall not be influenced by any orders passed earlier in the matter of custody of the child or any other legal proceedings between the parents and it shall consider the claim for the custody of only the child, independently keeping in mind only the best interests of the child. 23. The appeals are accordingly DISPOSED OF. Pending Civil Applications also stand DISPOSED OF.