JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 186/2016 by the District Judge-6, Latur, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant happens to be the father of Asit Gangawane who is stated to be approximately 16 years old. The wife of the appellant namely Pradnya met with unfortunate death on 06.10.2012. The criminal case came to be registered against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant came to be acquitted from the charge of murder after conclusion of trial. The appellant had applied for custody of his minor son Asit by taking aid of Section 25 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the District Judge at Latur. The learned District Judge after taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides was pleased to reject the application seeking custody of the minor son Asit. In the above background, the appellant/father has knocked the doors of this Court by way of appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Abhijit More, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sachin Panale, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 at length.

4. Mr. Abhijit More, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Latur is bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. The appellant being natural father is entitled to get custody of his minor son. The learned District Judge has given undue importance to the wish of the minor son and rejected the application for custody of a son. He submitted the learned District Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in a proper perspective and arrived at incorrect conclusion. He submitted that the appellant is taking proper care of his minor daughter. As such, there was no impediment before the learned District Judge to handover the custody of his minor son for his interest and development.

5. Mr. Abhijit More, learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Raju Uttam Trimbake and another Vs. Bhausaheb Bhimaji Shinde [First Appeal No.815/2019 with Civil Application No. 2625 of 2018 in Fist Appeal (Stamp) No. 3197 of 2018 decided on 24.04.2019 – Aurangabad Bench].

6. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Panale, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge-6, Latur. He submitted that the learned District Judge has personally interviewed the minor son in his Chamber. The learned District Judge has considered the conduct and behaviour of the appellant. The learned District Judge has also considered the evidence on record, which focused light as to how the appellant/father is careless in looking after his son. He submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the application by considering the welfare of the minor son, which is the paramount consideration. He submitted that there is no merit in the appeal.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for respective sides. Perused the impugned judgment passed in Civil M.A. No. 186/2016 by the learned District Judge-6, Latur, so also, relevant part of the evidence.

8. At the out set, it is necessary to mention that at present the minor son Aist is residing with respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the maternal grandparents of Asit. It is also revealed during the course of argument that Asit is about to reach age of majority and just away from seven to eight months in attending the majority. It is also not in dispute that Aditi happens to be the daughter of the appellant and she is now residing with her father. Respondent no.2 Nanda (Grandmother) had applied for the custody of Aditi by moving an application [Misc. Application (Guardians and Wards Act) No. 88/2011] and said application cam