The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, outweighing mere preference expressed by the child. The natural guardian has a legal right to custody if capable of providing better opportunities.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. ARAVIND, J.

1. Heard Sri Hemanth R. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals.

2. These appeals arise out of the common order dated 29.10.2024 passed in G & WC No.175/2019 and G & WC No.260/2020 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, [Family Court]

3. G & WC No.175/2019 was filed under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by the maternal uncle, aunt, and grandmother, seeking appointment of the maternal uncle and aunt as de jure guardians of the minor, Master Bhuvan H., and for permission to continue to have his custody. G & WC No.260/2020 was filed by the father under and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of his minor son, Master Bhuvan H.

4. The Family Court, after considering the common evidence, rejected the petition filed by the father and allowed the petition in G & WC No.175/2019, directing that the custody of the minor shall continue with the petitioners till he attains the age of majority. The Family Court further observed that upon attaining majority, the ward, Master Bhuvan H., may opt to reside with his father. These appeals are filed by the father assailing the said common order.

5. Sri Hemanth R. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the Family Court has placed undue emphasis on the wish of the ward to continue in the custody of the maternal uncle. Learned counsel contends that the Family Court has failed to apply the principle of the paramount welfare of the ward in its true perspective. It is further submitted that the appellant, being the father, is financially well placed to support and build the career of the ward, whereas the maternal uncle lacks the economic means to do so. It is further contended that, owing to the poor financial condition of the maternal uncle, the appellant has been bearing the educational and other expenses of the ward. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is in a position to provide better facilities and opportunities for the ward’s overall development than those presently available with the maternal uncle.

5.1 Learned counsel further submits that the father, being the natural guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor irrespective of any other consideration. It is contended that the Family Court, while directing that the custody of the ward shall remain with the maternal uncle, failed to consider the legal right of the appellant to have custody of his minor son. Learned counsel further submits that the observations made by the Family Court for continuing the custody with the maternal uncle are unfounded and without any legal basis.

5.2 The appellant has relied upon the following judgments to contend that, being the father and natural guardian, he is entitled to the custody of the minor. It is further submitted that the wish of the child, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for determining the custody of the minor ward.

(i) Gautam Kumar Das vs. NCT of Delhi and others , [2024] 8 S.C.R. 451

(ii) Sri G. Prabhudev and another vs. Smt. Ranganayaki and others , MFA No.4658/2023 C/W MFA CROB No.24/2024; and

(iii) Rohith Thammana Gowda vs. State of Karnataka & others, [2022] 4 SCR 784

6. Per contra, Sri S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, reiterating the submissions made before the Family Court, submits that the ward is comfortable in the custody of the respondents. Having regard to the age of the ward, it is contended that it would not be in the best interest of the child to compel a change of custody in favour of the father. It is further submitted that the ward is presently pursuing a Diploma