JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal is by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘Act of 1984’) against the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, Chhattisgarh in C.M.C. Case No.153 of 2015 whereby application filed by husband under Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for brevity 'Act of 1890') for grant of guardianship of his daughter, namely, Ku. Nikita from the wife was dismissed.

2. The facts of this case are that the appellant Devnath Ratre and respondent Smt. Malti Ratre got married on 26.04.2009 according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals. After the marriage, wife joined the company of husband and from the wedlock, one girl child, namely Ku. Nikita was born on 28.03.2010. After birth of a female child, some dispute arose between them. Subsequently, the relation in between husband and wife entered into rough weather and blame game started. In the year 2011, wife left her matrimonial home and went away with her child to her maternal house at Raipur. Thereafter, counseling proceedings took place, but eventually, it failed and they started living apart.

3. Wife also filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) for herself and her daughter against the husband before the Family Court, Raipur, C.G. In Mega Lok Adalat, vide order dated 20.01.2013, compromise took place between them and according to the terms of compromise, husband was directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the daughter.

4. It is pleaded by the husband in the plaint that wife has made false allegation against him that he committed torture and cruelty upon her after consuming liquor, which defamed his reputation in society. It was also pleaded by husband that his wife has a attitude of criminal nature, hence, if the child is being kept in her custody, there would be an adverse effect on the future of child, therefore, being a natural guardian, child be given in custody of the father (appellant herein).

5. Wife filed her written statement denying the plaint averments. She stated that after few days of marriage, husband took her jewellery, tortured her physically and mentally as well as beat her on different occasions for demand of dowry. She also stated that husband abandoned her since 2012 without any rhyme or reason and he was very careless as also even not bothered to meet his daughter. She further stated that husband was not capable to properly maintain and educate her daughter. Apart from that, it was stated that if the custody of daughter is given to husband, there would be negative impact on her. She also stated that she is taking care of her daughter as also providing proper education and, therefore, custody of minor child sought for by the husband may not be granted.

6. Learned Family Court after evaluating evidence adduced by both the parties, dismissed the application filed by the husband. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submits that Family Court ought to have considered the paramount interest of the minor child Ku. Nikita. The Family Court has failed to appreciate that husband is a natural guardian and is entitled to get the custody of minor child. According to the husband, he is in a better position to provide proper education for bright future of daughter. It is contended that Family Court has failed to appreciate that wife has attitude of criminal nature, and thus, impugned order passed by Family Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that being father the appellant/husband is obliged to give more care and attention for the progress of child but she is not being given due care attention by the father. It is submitted that the father is very careless towards the daughter and even does not bother to meet the child.