Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding parental rights; stability and security of the child’s living situation are essential for their development.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/non-applicant against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application of respondent/applicant who filed the same under Section 7 & 10 of Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 for custody of ward Master Purushottam Singh aged about 04 years.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/respondent Lalit Kishore Bais filed an application before the learned Family Court on this ground that the marriage of the non- applicant/appellant was solemnized with Ragini Singh according to Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, one son Master Purushottam Singh was born on 14.02.2017 and after the birth of son, the wife of appellant namely Ragini Singh was died on 12.03.2017 and since then, the minor Purushottam Singh is living with the applicant/respondent Lalit Kishore Bais who is his maternal uncle, as such the respondent herein filed an application for custody of minor child Purushottam Singh on this ground that the minor child is living with him since his birth and his father non-applicant/appellant never tried to take back his son with him and he performed second marriage, as such the applicant/respondent be appointed as a guardian of minor child.

3. Appellant/non-applicant Taran Singh in his reply denied all allegations of the respondent/applicant and stated that he is father of the minor child Purushottam Singh and is a natural guardian of Purushottam Singh, and he is working in District Court, Durg as a Class-IV employee (Peon) and after the birth of minor child Purushottam Singh, his mother, the wife of the non-applicant was died and looking to the age of the minor child, he kept him with his grandparents so that they can take care of him. Now, the minor child is aged about 4 years and non-applicant/appellant is being a father, i.e., natural guardian of ward, he has taken care of education and maintenance of child. So, the application filed by the applicant/respondent may be dismissed.

4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, allowed the application of maternal uncle who is applicant/respondent herein and was appointed as a guardian to the minor child Purushottam Singh, hence this appeal filed by the appellant/non-applicant i.e., father of the minor child Purushottam Singh before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/non-applicant submits that the impugned judgment is perverse, illegal, erroneous and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as to the evidence available on record, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. The learned Family Court has committed serious illegality in allowing the application under Section 7 & 10 of Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 filed by the respondent/applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant/respondent has not performed second marriage with any other lady and there are other family members in the family of the appellant/non-applicant who are capable to properly look after the minor child Master Purushottam Singh, as such the custody of Master Purushottam Singh may be provided to the appellant/non- applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant/non-applicant is in a better position to take care of his minor son properly and to provide him better education which is essential for him to stand on his own feet. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the Master Purushottam Singh is now aged about 6 years, therefore, according t