JUDGMENT

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J.:— Whether the father or the mother should have the custody of their minor daughter now aged 11 years, is the question which falls for consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court.

2. Irreconcilable differences between the father and the mother and embittered relationship between the two have resulted, in a sad protracted litigation. Unfortunately, in the various proceedings in Court between the father and the mother, the child had become the central figure and the child had appeared in Court on occasions for being interviewed by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court. The child, it appears, is quite bright and rather sensitive. The unfortunate litigation between the father and the mother appears to have badly affected the normal and healthy growth of the child. The situation appears to be all the more unfortunate. as the father and the mother both love the child dearly and the child is fond of both her parents. It is, indeed, sad that the parents who are both genuinely fond of their daughter and have her welfare in their hearts, could not compose, their differences and workout a solution which would be most conducive to the welfare of the child. The responsibility has, therefore, devolved on the Court, The task of the Court is indeed difficult and delicate. The Court in this case is concerned with a human problem affecting the future of a little girl. We feel that in a case of this nature a decision of the Court, however, may not succeed in solving the real problem and in achieving the desired goal. Anyway, as all attempts by Courts to bring about an agreed solution of the problem to the satisfaction of all concerned. have failed the Court must proceed to discharge its duly, however painful and delicate that task may be.

3. We shall now proceed to state some of the broad facts relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this case.

4. The appellant who is the mother of the child and the respondent who is the father of the child, both belong to the Parsi Community and they were married in Bombay on the 27th December, 1960 according to the rights and ceremonies of the Zoroastrian religion and custom. A son was born to them on the 6th of May, 1965. The son. who is called Shiavux is now more than 16 years old. A daughter was born to the appellant and the respondent on the 18th Apr., 1971. The daughter is named Gospi and she is now nearly 11 years of age. In this appeal we are concerned with the custody of this girl Gospi. The appellant who is the mother and whom we shall describe in the judgment either as the appellant or the mother, has been in the employment of Tatas for a long time and she now works as a confidential secretary to one of the Directors and gets a salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The respondent obtained training in architectural engineering and had obtained a diploma. The respondent had also obtained a license from the authorities to enable him to function as an architect. The respondent had worked with various concerns from time to time and had also worked at times of his own as an architect. The respondent at present owns a taxi which he plies himself. According to the respondent he makes a gross earning on average of something between Rs. 125/- to Rs. 150/- per day, by plying his taxi. After the marriage on 27-12-1960 the respondent set up their matrimonial borne in Mount Villas at Bandra, the tenancy of which stood in the name of the appellant, As the appellant is an employee of Tatas, the tenancy was granted to her by Ratan Tata Trust which owns the premises. It appears that unfortunate differences arose between the appellant and the respondent and the appellant left the matrimonial home on 21-5-1978. It is indeed unfortunate that the parents could not reconcile their differences at least in the interest of their children and on 21-4-1979 the appellant filed a suit being Suit No. 14 of 1979 for judicial separation. On 24-4-1979 the appellant in her Suit