The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in determining the custody of a child.

( 1 ) THESE arc two appeals, one by the husband against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore by which he dismissed the petitioner-appellant's application for judicial separation from his wife the respondent and the other by the wife against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah by which he allowed the application of the husband for custody of the child of the marriage.

( 2 ) THE parties are Hindus and were married on April 22, 1960 according to Hindu religious rites and a male child was born on February 9, 1961. They lived together till the 1st of March 1962 since when they have been living apart.

( 3 ) THE petitioner husband's case is that his wife the respondent was haughty and temperamental as her parents were wealthy and she wanted him to live in her father's house at Salkia and as the petitioner refused to do it, she ultimately left his house on the 1st of March 1962 without any cause whatsoever. His further case is to the effect that in spite of repealed requests she has not returned to him and has completely deserted him. He, therefore, filed an application praying for " judicial separation.

( 4 ) THE respondent categorically denied all these allegations. Her case is that she does not belong to a wealthy family and never expected her husband to live with her at her father's place. On the other hand, the petitioner wanted money from her father and as her father could not procure the same and offered him only half of that amount, he grew angry and began to practise cruelty upon her and drove her away sometime in September 1961, 12 days thereafter her father-in-law died and she was called an evil woman and was held responsible by the members of her husband's family for the death of the father-in-law. In spite of that, on hearing the sad news she came over to her husband's place with her father but she was given a cold reception and was driven away on the next day. She, however, along with her father came to attend the Sradh ceremony and after the Sradh was over, there was some sort of reconciliation effected between them and she came over to live with her husband at his place of work at Naihati. The petitioner, however, on some excuse took away her ornaments and have refused to return the same to her. She was then given medicines brought by her husband for an illness not known to herself, and when she met the Doctor, namely Dr. Bejoy Bose, who gave the prescription, he told her not to take the medicines and thereafter the respondent discontinued taking medicines. The petitioner there upon became displeased and began to press upon her to quit his residence and began to ill-treat her and even stopped her food. On 26-2-1962 the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent's father to come positively on 1st of March 1962 for some urgent consultation. When the father came, the petitioner abused and insulted him, and drove the respondent away. She denies that any attempt was made by her husband to take her back. She, however, reiterated that she had been and is always willing to go back to her husband, provided he gives some sort of guarantee that he will not ill-treat her.

( 5 ) THE learned Additional District Judge on the evidence accepted the respondent's case in toto and held that there has not been any desertion by the wife of the husband. He further came to the conclusion that it was rather the petitioner who was responsible for the separation and that he made no attempts to bring her back. He therefore dismissed the application.

( 6 ) IN this appeal by the husband, it is contended, that the learned Additional District Judge erred in holding as above.

( 7 ) IT is well settled now that in essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse, by the other, without the other's consent, and without reasonable cause, and that it is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. In a case of desertion there must be two con