The welfare and safety of the child are paramount in custody decisions, and the natural parent's rights may be limited based on the child's best interests.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

1. The appellant father has filed the present Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2022 vide which the appellant seeking custody of the minor daughter under Section u/s 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been dismissed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South-East Delhi

2. The facts in brief are as stated in the present appeal that the appellant father got married to Respondent No.1 according to Hindu (Sikh) Rites and Ceremonies on 18.02.2006 and one daughter namely Miss Prabhleen Kaur Kohli was born from the said wedlock on 08.03.2007. The appellant got arrested by the police in a false case under Section 364/302/201 IPC on 12.05.2008 and remained in judicial custody till 15.01.2015. The respondent No. 1 along with the child, left the matrimonial home in May, 2008 without the permission of the parents of the appellant while he who was in judicial custody. The respondent No.1 thereafter, sought divorce from the appellant and blackmailed that in case he did not agree to the divorce, she would make his life miserable. She thereafter, filed a false case in CAW Cell, implicating the appellant and his family members by making false allegations; however, with the intervention of the respectable relatives, she agreed to withdraw her complaint. It is further stated that pursuant to the settlement, all the dowry articles were returned to respondent no.1 on 10.06.2008 but she refused to honour her part of Agreement wherein she had agreed to hand over the custody of the child to the parents of the appellant. She again filed a complaint in the CAW Cell in September, 2008 and insulted and humiliated the family members of the appellant.

3. The mother of the appellant/paternal grandmother filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 against the respondent no.1 and the interim custody for one day was granted to her by the Guardian Judge, THC, Delhi. Aggrieved by the said Order, the respondent no.1 filed a Civil Misc. (Main) before this Court and this Court granted right to the grandmother to meet her granddaughter with the direction to withdraw the custody petition before the Trial Court and the same was accordingly withdrawn by the mother of the appellant.

4. The appellant on getting a regular bail from the High Court of Chandigarh vide Order dated 05.01.2015, filed the present petition for the custody of the child whom he had not been able to meet ever since the day of his incarnation in jail. The grounds for claiming the custody were that the child was attached to the grandmother/Dadi and on every visitation she enquired from her about her father i.e. the appellant. However, the respondent no.1 misguided the child and instructed her to address the grandmother as Aunt. It was claimed that the appellant was residing in joint family and in his absence; his mother with whom the child had special affection, would well look after the child. He also stated that he is the natural father of the minor daughter and thus, sought permanent custody of the child.

5. The petition was contested by the respondent who asserted that the appellant was involved in the heinous crime under Section 364/302/201 IPC in FIR No. 92/2008, PS Kundli, Haryana registered on 12.05.2008 and he has been in judicial custody since then. The child who was then about one year, is not safe in the custody of the appellant who repeatedly extended threats to respondent and their daughter. It was further claimed that the appellant was misusing the privilege of bail granted to him and claimed that the petition was not maintainable. It was further asserted that the appellant had played a fraud on the respondent no.1 and her family members as he suppressed that he was suffering from Type-1 diabetes and was dependent upon insulin injections. Moreover, she was subjected to physical beatings, torture and harassment and various acts of cruelty by the appellant and other family