(1). AND out of the said wedlock Antariksh was born on 18.11.99, Mithu Kundu who had been suffering from hyper-tension and other ailments died following severe pain on her chest. She died before she could be taken to a local government Hospital. The parents-in-law of the present Oppsite party being terribly shocked due to sudden demise of their daughter lodged a complaint with the local police station alleging torture and murder of their daughter by their son-in-law. During the pendency of the said case, the opposite party herein was taken into custody and under that circumstance, the parents-in-law of opposite party herein-expressed their desire to meet their grand son antariksh and keep him with them for some days. On such request made by the maternal grand parents of the child, the mother of the opposite party herein sent Antariksh to his maternal grand parents through a common relative named Niranjan Kundu. After being released on bail, the opposite party herein wanted to take back his son from his in-laws, but the present appellants i.e. the in-laws of the opposite party herein refused to hand over Antariksh to the opposite party. Under such circumstances, the opposite party herein filed a case under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act (Act VIII of 1890) praying for his appointment as the guardian of his son Antariksh and for permanent custody of his son.

(2). THE present appellants i.e. the maternal grand parents of the child contested the case. It was contended by the appellants before the learned court below that Antariksh was handed over to them in sick condition from the house of the opposite party herein.

(3). THE learned Court below considering the respective contentions of the parties allowed the petition under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardian and wards Act (Act VIII 1890) holding that the maternal grand parents had not obtained custody of their grand son by any unlawful means. It has also been observed by the learned Judge of the Court below that the petitioner/father wanted to take back his son from the custody of his parents in law which was refused by them. The learned Court below further held that the maternal grand parents of the child did not apply before any Court for their appointment as the legal guardians of Antariksh and it was their legal duty to return the child to his father immediately after Antarikshs father wanted the custody of the child. It was further held that keeping Antariksh in their custody ignoring the claim of Antarikshs father was not legal. It was held that the opposite parties wanted to wipe out the existence and identity of father from the mind of the petitioners son and if it is so, then it may be disastrous for the future of the petitioners son.

(4). THE learned Court below further held that under the proviso of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 nothing has been alleged against the father of the child, and, therefore, the petitioner/father had every right under the law to act as the guardian of his minor son and to keep him in his custody. The learned Court below however, held that legal right was not always the ultimate criteria to choose the custodian of a minor and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below held that the present and future of Antariksh would be better secured in the custody of his father and that the father is the best guardian of the child in absence of his mother. The learned Court below further held that the petitioner/ father being the natural guardian of his minor son and having not been disqualified for any reason under the Act, it was not required to declare him as the legal guardian of his son, especially when nobody else has claimed to be the legal guardian of the minor child. Learned Court below held that the maternal grand father will retire from service on 2010 and on the contrary, the petitioner is an Engineer/technician in the Indian Airlines having sufficien