R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 30th January, 2012 by which the Criminal Appeal preferred by respondent no.1 herein against interim order dated 28th November, 2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'C' Court, Mapusa, granting interim custody of the girl child aged 5 years to the petitioner was allowed. The petitioner is the mother and respondent no.1 is the father of the child.

2. In her application for custody of the daughter, the petitioner alleges that on 25th May, 2011, at around 1.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. The respondent abused her and forced her to leave the house. Consequently, the petitioner had to take refuge with the landlady who lived close-by. At about 4.00 a.m. the respondent forcibly grabbed the child sleeping with the petitioner and left the house on his scooter. It is the case of the petitioner that she waited on that day till 8.00 p.m. in the hope that the respondent would calm down and return home. When he did not do so, she sought help of Mapusa Police Station. Prior to that she had called her mother-in-law at her residence at Tuem but the mother-in-law refused to give any information about the whereabouts of the respondent and the daughter. The petitioner then filed a missing complaint on 26th May, 2011 with Mapusa Police Station. All attempts on the part of the petitioner to get the child back were fruitless and the petitioner was advised to approach the Goa State Commission for help. Only thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Protection Officer in Form I under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking custody of the daughter amongst other reliefs. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa, by the order dated 28th November, 2011 directed the respondent to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner. The respondent did not comply with the order and challenged the same before the Court of Sessions by way of Criminal Appeal No. 146/2011. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal after interviewing the child. The Sessions Court was of the opinion that the child appears to be very content, and has no reservations about having to live with the father. The Court was also of the opinion that the child was faring well in school. Further, it observed that the financial status of the respondent is not the ground on which application for interim custody should be decided. The finding on the financial status of the respondent was given in view of the allegation that the respondent does not have any fixed source of income and that he is indebted to several persons and banks. The respondent is alleged to have been running away from his creditors and for that purpose has been changing his residence continuously. The relevant observation of the Appellate Court at para 21 of its order are as follows :

“21. In the instant case under consideration, I do not find that the appellant herein is disqualified in any manner in continuing with the custody of the child, as I have noted that the child is comfortable and does not seem to be in any way adversely affected by the absence of her mother, I would consider it appropriate that she continues to be in the custody of the appellant herein, with visitation rights to the respondent, on every Saturday and Sunday, from the afternoon till 6.00 p.m. The Ld. Trial Court to decide on the place where the present respondent is to get visitation rights. I am of the opinion, if the child is taken out from the custody of the appellant, it would be traumatic for her, she appearing to be comfortable and well looked after by the appellant.”

4. Mr. D'Souza, the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that the entire approach of the Appellate Court has been incorrect and contrary to settled principles of law.