Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

1. In this appeal, the challenge levied is to the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil MJC No. 3/2016 vide Annexure A-1 whereby and whereunder she ordered that respondent No.1 – Chitralekha Sahu is entitled to get the custody of the minor son, respondent No.2 – Vedant Sahu.

2. This is admitted by the appellant that his marriage was solemnized with respondent No. 1 in Bhilai on 24.06.2009, out of their wedlock respondent No.2 was born on 03.09.2010; Respondent No.1 lived with him in his parental house at Deepak Nagar Durg till 15.06.2010; during this period she became pregnant; he was convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life in a murder case; he had preferred an appeal before this Court which is yet pending consideration; he has been released on bail by order of this Court, on 06.01.2013 he took respondent No.2 from the house of respondent No. 1; respondent No. 2 was living with respondent No. 1; respondent No. 1 is in service and living in Dallirajhara.

3. In brief, case of respondent No.1 is that the appellant was impeaching her character. On 06.01.2013 the appellant had not left respondent No.2 in her house, the appellant refused to send back respondent No.2 to her house.

4. In brief, case of appellant is that respondent No.1 had sent him message that she is inclined to marry with one Dilip Verma. On 7.01.2013 he had gone to the house of respondent No. 1 to leave respondent No. 2 but respondent No.1 had told that she does not want to keep respondent No.2 because he is the mark of sin. He is maintaining respondent No. 2 well. Respondent No. 1 uses to ply daily up and down from Dallirajhara to her service place, thus, respondent No. 2 would not get good education and proper maintenance.

5. The First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg decided the application of respondent No.1 filed under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter called as “the Act of 1890”) as aforesaid. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred this appeal.

6. Shri Shikhar Sharma, counsel for the appellant argued that respondent No. 1 had refused to keep respondent No. 2 saying that he is mark of sin. Respondent No. 1 uses to travel daily up and down from Dallirajhara to her working place which is 30 km away from Dallirajhara. She had told that she will marry with some other person with whom she is in love. Thus, the order Annexure A-1 may be set aside.

7. Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the order Annexure A-1 is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court.

8. In the case in hand a small child near about 6 and half years old is the subject matter of the big problem that has arisen between his father and mother as to who is entitled to get his custody. The innocent child who would have busy in playing, education, enjoying childhood, is travelling with his father and mother in temple of justice.

9. The company of both father and mother with child is always helpful in his/her complete development who naturally understand his/her sentiments, problems, etc. Absence of the company of any of the spouse may affect his/her life adversely.

10. In the case is hand it is not possible for the parents to live together. Thus this Court is left with option to decide the case in hand on strength of the merit.

11. Now, the considerable point for adjudication of the dispute in the case in hand is as to whether respondent No. 1 is “able and competent person” to get the custody of respondent No. 2, looking to his interest and welfare.

12. During the recording of the examination-in-chief by the Court, AW 1 Smt. Chitralekha Sahu has stated her occupation as Shikshakarmi Class -I. She says in para 17 that she has studied upto M.Sc. Microbiology, PGDCA, B.Ed. There is no such evidence on record on the strength of which it could be said that she is not allegedly Shikshakarmi Class-I and her above-said statement is