JUDGMENT :

These appeals have been preferred by the wife and husband respectively assailing order dated 21.11.2014 passed in G.& W. case No.101 of 2012 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. The said petition was filed by the wife (mother of minor child Aditya Rajiv Ratnam) under Sections 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) seeking appointment of herself as guardian of the minor child and to grant permanent custody to her. The said petition was contested by the husband/father of the child.

2. The mother of the child letin her evidence as PW1 and another witness (petitioner’s mother) was examined as PW2. She produced fifty documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P50. The respondent/father of the child examined himself as RW1. He produced ninetyfive documents which were marked as Exs.R1 to R95. Thereafter, the Family Court raised the following points for its consideration:

(i) “Whether the petitionermother is entitled to be appointed and declared as the guardian of the minor childMaster Aditya Rajiv Ratnam?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for permanent custody of the minor child?

(iii) Whether the respondent is entitled for permanent custody of the minor child?

(iv) What order?”

3. The Family Court answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, point No.3 in the negative and declared the mother as the guardian of the minor child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam and that the child shall continue to be under the care and custody of the mother. However, certain directions were issued regarding visitation rights for the respondent/father. Being aggrieved, both the parents of the child have preferred their respective appeals.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties in the presence of the parties and we also interviewed the minor child on 10.02.2020.

5. In the connected case M.F.A. No.4749 of 2019, the parents had sought dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed in M.F.A.No.4749 of 2019 and an application under Section 13B(2) was also filed seeking waiver of six months period stipulated under the said provision.

6. These, and other connected cases were adjourned from time to time in order to evolve a settlement between the parties who have been litigating for quite a few years before several fora, before the trial court and this Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in the Courts of United States of America (USA).

7. The parties were granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent by judgment dated 27/08/2020 subject to the terms agreed upon by them. Clause (5) of the petition filed under Section 13B of the Act reads as under:

“5. The Parties have agreed to withdraw the cases between them and their family members. The parties have not been able to reach any consensus adidem in relation to matters relating to child custody and visitation of their minor child Master Aditya Rajiv Ratnam and consequently, they have agreed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order in relation to the same, which shall be part of this settlement.”

(underlining by us)

8. Whenever, the husband and wife seek to dissolve their marriage, the conflict over the custody of the child, particularly a minor child, assumes significance. Whenever there is opposition by a party for giving custody of the child to another party and vice versa, the conflict can become extreme and aggravated sometimes resulting in dilution of any settlement that could be arrived at between the parties to seek dissolution of their marriage. One cannot underestimate the fact that in the case of separation of parents on account of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, the children of the marriage are most affected physically, emotionally and their upbringing would take a beating.

9. One of the ways to resolve the conundrum is, by the emerging concep