ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in Civil Appeal No. 4461 of 2015.

4. We have perused the impugned judgment and other connected papers. The dispute is in relation to the custody of the minor child, namely, Vathan. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, vide his judgment dated 1.02.2011 after adverting to the relevant facts, evidence on record and rival legal contentions, held that the respondent-father is entitled to the custody of the child and further directed the appellant-mother to handover the custody of the child within a period of one month. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Karnataka on various grounds. The High Court vide its judgment dated 13.09.2013 in MFA No. 1729/2011, after adverting to the rival legal contentions examined the correctness of the finding recorded in the judgment of the Family Court Judge, modified the judgment of the Family Court Judge to the effect by allowing the appeal partly and modified the Order dated 1.02.2011 in G & WC 106/2004 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore, holding that the respondent-father is entitled to the custody of the minor child from 1st January to 30th June and the appellant-mother is entitled to custody of the minor child from 1st July to 31st December of every year, till the minor son attains the age of majority. The correctness of this modified order is challenged by the parties before this Court by filing these appeals.

5. We have carefully examined the findings and reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment keeping in view the decision rendered by this Court on the question of welfare of the child and custody of the child when there is a serious dispute with regard to the matrimonial issues between the father and mother. It would be necessary for us to extract from the judgment of this Court in the case of Lekha v. P. Anil Kumar reported in (2006) 13 SCC 555, the relevant paragraphs are extracted herein below;

"16. In Samuel Stephen Richard v. Stella Richard, AIR 1955 Mad 451, the High Court in deciding the question of custody held as follows:

"In deciding the question of custody, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration and the fact that the father is the natural guardian would not ipso facto' entitle him to custody. The principal considerations or tests which have been laid down under Section 17, in order to secure this welfare, are equally applicable in considering the welfare of the minor under Section 25. The application of these tests casts an arduous' duty on the court. Amongst the many and multifarious duties that a Judge in Chambers performs by far the most onerous duties are those cast upon him by the Guardians and Wards Act. He should place himself in the position of a wise father and be not tired of the worries which may be occasioned to him in selecting a guardian best fitted to assure the welfare of a minor and thereafter guide and control the guardian to ensure the welfare of the warda no mean task but the highest fulfilment of the dharmasastra of his own country. It is only an extreme case where a mother may not have the interest of her child most dear to her. Since it is the mother who would have the interest of the minor most at heart, the tender years of a child needing the care, protection and guidance of the most interested person, the mother has come to be preferred to others."

17. In Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, (1982) 2 SCC 544, this Court held as under:

"17. The principles of law in relation to the custody of a minor appear to be well established. It is well settled that any matter concerning a minor, has to be considered and decided only from the point of view of the welfare and interest of the minor. In dealing with a matter concerning a minor, the Court has a special responsibility