PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This is an appeal under section 47 of the Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act, 1890') read with section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act, 1984') challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Bemetara, allowing the respondent/wife's application/plaint for custody of minor girl Ku. Sakshi under Section 25 of the Act, 1890.

2. As pleaded in the plaint filed by the wife, the parties were married about 7 years back from the date of institution of the proceedings by the respondent/wife. Two girl child namely; Ku. Ashtha and Ku. Sakshi were born out of the wedlock. On account of giving birth to two girl child, members of her in-laws' family started torturing her and the appellant/husband started threatening the wife to perform second marriage. The wife was locked in a room from morning to evening on 30.7.2011. When the lock was opened in the evening the wife was driven out of the house. On that date Ku. Ashtha accompanied the wife, but the husband forcibly retained Ku, Sakshi in his house. Being the natural guardian of the girl child, aged about 26 years, the application was filed for her custody.

3. The appellant/husband denied the plaint allegations, inter alia, stating that he is staying separately from the joint family only because of the quarrel raised by the wife and that she has left the matrimonial house on her own volition. Appellant also made allegation regarding the character of the respondent/wife. He admitted that he is working as Shiksha Karmi. Contrary to the earlier statement, he pleaded in para 6 of the reply that he is residing with his father in the joint family, where his parents, brothers, sisters and sister-in-law (babhi) are present to take care of Ku. Sakshi. It was specifically stated that if the girl child stays with her mother she will also become characterless like her mother.

4. Based on the statement of the respondent/wife and her witness Bhajman and the statement of the appellant/husband and his witness Sanat Nirmalkar, the Family Court concluded that the allegation on the character of the wife is not proved. I" is also held that under Section 6 of the Act, 1890 the mother is entitled to the custody of minor child. The Trial Court has also considered that village Padmi is only about 9 kms. from Dewar Bija where the elder daughter Ku. Ashtha is studying, therefore, Ku. Sakshi can also get education in the same school while staying with the mother.

5. On a reading of the statement of the wife, it appears her father is an agriculturist having 30 acres of land and that her elder daughter is obtaining good education at Saraswati Gyan Mandir, Dewar Bija.

6. In course of hearing of this appeal on 21.11.2016 this Court interacted with the girl child and observed thus:

2. This matter was taken up in Chamber. We have questioned the minor girl and the parties. The young girl is intelligent. She is very communicative and was not at all nervous when she talked to us. She is a confident young child. She is living with her father for two and half years and it is apparent that she is being educated well.

3. A child should not suffer for the fault of parents. She is not an inanimate object. She is not a pen or pencil. We cannot hand over the child from one parent to another parent. Without going into the merits of the case as to whether it is the father or the mother, who is entitled the custody of the child, we are clearly of the view that the child has the right to get love and affection of both the parents. Why should a child suffer if the parents are fighting each other? In this case, there is another important factor that one girl child is living with the mother and one with the father. Both the sisters also have a right to know and love with each other. The situation at present is that the child living (sic with) her father is neither permitted nor is able to meet her father (sic mother) or her sister. As far as the sister is concerned, the f