IMPORTANT POINT
In deciding custody of a child, the interest of the child is paramount. The court should exercise parens patriae jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.04.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has come up in these appeals. The impugned judgment of the High Court was passed in First Appeal No.59 of 2016 filed by the appellant and First Appeal No.68 of 2016 filed by the respondent both challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Guardianship Case No.11 of 2012 filed by the respondent under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

3. The brief facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are:

3.1 The appellant and the respondent were married in the year 2003. There has been matrimonial dispute between the parties since the year 2006. A girl child was born to the appellant and the respondent on 09.04.2007, named as Aditi. The appellant filed complaint against the husband before various authorities, employer of the respondent as well as National Human Rights Commission. A petition for seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the respondent at Bengaluru where the respondent was residing. In the year 2008, the appellant lodged FIR against the respondent under Section 498A of the IPC being Case No.204 of 2008. In the year 2008, the respondent filed an application for seeking a decree of divorce before the Family Court, Bengaluru which was registered as Matrimonial Case No.3358 of 2008.

3.2 The respondent filed an application before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Kadma PS Case No.204 of 2008 in which case parties were referred to mediation and conciliation to amicably resolve their issues. On 11.09.2009, the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru granted ex parte decree of divorce dated 11.09.2009. During the pendency of the Anticipatory Bail Application being No.518 of 2009, the parties amicably settled all their disputes before Jharkhand Legal Services Authority. A Settlement dated 19.12.2009 between the parties was communicated to the High Court. As per the terms of the settlement, the respondent agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the appellant. Further, the respondent agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of Aditi for her all time maintenance. The appellant further agreed not to challenge ex parte divorce decree. The appellant also agreed to allow the respondent to meet their child once in every two months starting from January, 2010. The High Court disposed of the matter in terms of the settlement.

3.3 The respondent alleging obstruction by the appellant in his visiting rights filed an application seeking custody of the child, Aditi under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 at Bengaluru. The said proceedings under Guardian and Wards Act were transferred to Family Court at Jamshedpur under order of this Court dated 27.03.2012. The appellant filed written statement in Guardianship Case No.11 of 2012. The respondent made an amendment application before the Family Court, Jamshedpur praying for an alternative relief for addition of a prayer in his application in Guardianship Case, i.e., for directing the child to be admitted in any reputed residential/boarding school in India at the expenses of the respondent, which amendment application was allowed by an order dated 16.05.2013. The Principal Judge, Family Court by order dated 31.03.2016 decided the Guardianship Case No.11 of 2012. It is to be noted that in the Guardianship proceedings the respondent has given up his claim of the custody of child and confined his case to alternative prayer, i.e., direction to admit the child in a boarding school. The Family Court, Jamshedpur in paragraph 41 of the judgment directed:

"41. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, I come to the conclusion that minor daughter of the petitioner and respondent Aditi Bishaskha Das sha