IMPORTANT POINT
The orders relating to custody of children are by the very nature not final but are interlocutory in nature and subject to modification at any future time upon proof of change of circumstances requiring change of custody but such change in custody must be proved to be in the paramount interest of the child.

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 5357/2000.

2. Two grand fathers - maternal and paternal - are fighting bitter litigation to secure the custody of their grandson, Ankur. It is second time that they are before this Court. Our efforts for amicable settlement between them have not succeeded. We, however, hope that in the interest of their grandchild at last they will resolve the controversy in near and not distant future and bring to end the litigation which commenced after respondent No. 1 lost his son and the appellant his son-in-law.

2. It May 1990, marriage was solemnised between Meera and Sanjay and out of wedlock, Ankur was born in December, 1991. On attaining three years of age, he was admitted into Maria Montessory School, Guwahati in the year 1995. Unfortunately, all of a sudden, Sanjay died in a heart attack in the year 1995. Ankur s paternal grandfather - respondent No. 1, on 27.2.1997 filed a case under Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for appointing him as guardian and custodian of Ankur and an ex-parte order of injunction was also sought restraining Meera from giving Ankur in adoption to her parents or any other person. The Principal Judge, family court, directed the maintenance of status-quo with respect to Ankur. In opposition, the stand taken by the appellant - maternal grandfather and his daughter - was that Ankur had been adopted by appellant on 9.2.97 and subsequently on 27.2.1997, a deed of adoption was executed and the said deed was registered at Golaghat sub-Registry as the adoption took place at Dergaon. The deed of adoption, it seems, was registered on 28th February, 1997. The family Court rejected the prayer of respondent No. 1 for interim custody of the child but respondent No. 1 succeeded in the revision petition filed in the High Court against the order of the family court. The High Court directed on 19.2.98 that interim custody of Ankur be given to respondent No. 1 till disposal of application for appointment of guardian. That order was, however, varied by this Court in the Special Leave petition filed by the appellant on agreement of the parties in terms of order of this Court dated 15th September, 1998. The said order directed access of Ankur being given to respondent No. 1 and his wife on certain days and the arrangement in the said order was directed to continue till the disposal of the case pending before Family Court.

3. The Family Court by order dated 7th December, 1998 appointed respondent No. 1 as guardian of minor Master Ankur and the appellant was directed to hand over the child to respondent No. 1 as soon as his examination is over. The challenge of the appellant and his daughter of the order passed by the Family Court did not succeed before the High Court. Their appeal was dismissed and the order of the Family Court was maintained. These are the circumstances under which the matter is once again before this court on this appeal having been preferred by the maternal grandfather.

4. The Family Court and the Division Bench of the High Court have extensively examined the matter and given due weight to the relevant factors for considering the aspect of the welfare of the minor which is of paramount importance in the custody matters. It has also been noticed in these orders that in May 1997, Meera remarried and her husband from first marriage has two children - one now aged about 14 years and other 9 years. She is settled with her husband in Calcutta. The dispute regarding the validity of the adoption is subject matter of Title Suit No. 4 of 1997 pending between the parties. The observations made in the judgments of the High Court and of the Family Court in respect of the adoption and deed of adoption are prima facie for deciding the question of custody. We find no fault in this approach. Undoubtedly the substantive rights in regard to adoption would be decided in the title suit on its own merits.

5. It seems evident that none of the parties has any oblique motive.