JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal is by the appellant under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘Act of 1984’) against the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2018 passed by Link Court, Khairagarh of Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 13-A of 2016 whereby application filed by the appellant under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘Act of 1956’) for grant of guardianship of his son, namely, Master Lomesh from respondent No. 2, i.e. maternal grandfather of respondent No. 1 (son) was dismissed.

2. Appellant is the father of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 is maternal grandfather of respondent No. 1.

3. The facts of the case, are that, appellant was married to Mohini Bai (since deceased) prior to 15 years back according to Hindu rites and rituals and from the wedlock, one son, namely, Master Lomesh was born. It was pleaded in the plaint that after the marriage, deceased wife was remained ill and suffered from back bone fracture. The appellant used to take care of her treatment. Suddenly, in the year 2014, deceased wife left the house of appellant and resided in her maternal house. When appellant visited his matrimonial house to take back of his wife, respondent No. 2 misbehaved with him and deceased wife refused to come back with the appellant. Appellant tried many times to bring back her wife, but deceased wife refused to come back with him.

4. Subsequently, deceased wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Link Court, Khairagarh of Family Court, Rajnandgaon for maintenance. The appellant submitted his reply to the application, but on 01.02.2016, Mohini Bai was died. Learned Link Court allowed the application and awarded Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance vide order dated 11.05.2018.

5. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1956 before the Link Court, Khairagarh of Family Court, Rajnandgaon claiming custody of the child inter-alia on the ground that he being the natural guardian of the child is legally entitled for the custody. It was further pleaded that his financial status is very good and it would not be proper to deprive the child from love and affection of father. In order to look after the welfare of the child, he is the most suitable person to take care of the child, hence, he is entitled to seek custody of his minor son.

6. Respondent No. 2 (father-in-law of appellant) denied the allegations. According to him, soon after the marriage, appellant used to commit physical cruelty upon her daughter. Due to wrong treatment given to her, she died. Last rituals of Mohini Bai was performed by her father and not by the appellant. It was pleaded that since the birth of the son of the appellant, he was not bothered to meet his son. It was further pleaded that appellant has contracted second marriage. Respondent No. 2 is maintaining the child with all due caution and care and the child is growing up well in an atmosphere which is conducive to its growth, therefore, he should keep the child with him.

7. On appreciation of materials placed on record, learned Link Court, Khairagarh of Family Court, Rajnandgaon dismissed the application filed by the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Family Court ought to have considered the paramount interest of the minor child. The Family Court has failed to appreciate that father is a natural guardian and is entitled to get the custody of minor child. According to the appellant, though he has contracted second marriage, still it would be better in the welfare of the minor to be in the custody of him, and thus, impugned judgment and decree passed by Family Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant is very careless towards the minor child and even does not bother to meet the child. He further su