IMPORTANT POINT
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody battles, considering the child's preference, financial capacity, and moral and ethical values.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

CM APPL. 7623/2023 (Condonation of delay)

1. The present Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of 61 days' delay in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the delay of 61 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 7624/2023 (Condonation of delay)

4. The present Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of 8 days' delay in re-filing the present appeal.

5. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the delay of 8 days in re-filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

6. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 47/2023

7. It is the child who suffers the most casualty in custody battle because even if either parent wins, the child loses everything due to polarization of familial relations. Merely having a child does not make one a `parent', rather the one who protects the child from being torn in such parental conflicts is the closest to being an `ideal-parent'. The focus should be the child's future and not the parents' past.

8. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the appellant/mother (respondent in Guardianship Petition) against the Judgment dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi declaring the parents of the minor as joint guardians and granting visitation rights to the respondent/father (petitioner in Guardianship Petition) while the custody of the minor is granted to the appellant/mother till the age of eighteen years.

9. Admittedly, the parties got married on 11.05.2006 and one son, Master Mayank was born from their wedlock on 02.05.2007.

10. The matrimonial disputes arose between the parties and eventually they got separated on 22.02.2009 i.e. after about three years. The custody of the child, however, remained with the appellant/mother.

11. The respondent/father filed a Guardianship Petition under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for Declaration/appointment as guardian of person of minor child, Master Mayank and for his permanent custody, being the father and natural guardian on the premise that the appellant/mother was not taking proper care of the child and was not fit to safeguard the interest of the minor child, Master Mayank.

12. It was asserted in the Guardianship Petition that the appellant/mother was a lady of short temperament and psychologically imbalanced. The appellant/mother had a habit of flaring up on trivial issues, which she had admitted and apologized in writing vide Annexure A. It was further claimed that the appellant/mother had no emotional feelings for the minor and the child's growth would be hampered if his custody remained with the mother.

13. The respondent/father had claimed that he has the financial capacity to take care of the needs and health of the minor child and it was in the interest and welfare of the child to be removed from the harmful influence of the appellant/mother.

14. Therefore, the respondent/father made a prayer that it would be in the interest and welfare of the child if he is declared the guardian and the custody of the minor is given to him. Further, the appellant/mother may be restrained from meeting the child or to regulate and restrict her meeting in such a manner that the physical and mental health of the child is not affected.

15. The appellant/mother in her Written Statement filed in these proceedings before the Family Court, asserted that the respondent/father is not well behaved, cultured, is not educated and is unable to provide good education to the child. The respondent's father, who was a Gove