” This is an appeal under section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 wherein judgment and order dated 12.04.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Dhubri in Misc. (G) Case No. 8/2011 has been challenged.

2. This unfortunate legal battle is in regard to custody of a poor minor son of the parties who have parted their ways for last 7 years owing to difference between them. The appellant (Soma Das) was married to opposite party No. 1, namely, Ranjit Das in the year 2007 and out of their wedlock a male child named Ayush Das was born on 17.08.2008. Thereafter, differences cropped up between husband and wife leading to their separation. The appellant wife went back to her paternal home on 16.02.2010 allegedly on being tortured by the husband. She left behind the minor son in the custody of the respondent. After more than 9 (nine) months she filed an application before the District Judge at Dhubri under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act praying that she be appointed as natural guardian of her child and custody of the child be given to her. At the first instance, the learned District Judge passed an interim order directing the opposite party father to hand over the child to the mother. The interim order came under challenge before this court in CRP No. 57/2012 wherein this court passed an order on 16.02.2012 directing the learned District Judge to decide the guardianship issue within 2 (two) months. Accordingly, the learned District Judge passed an order dated 12.04.2012 allowing custody of the child in favour of the wife (appellant herein). This order was brought under challenge vide Gua.P. 1/2012 and this court by order dated 16.11.2012 allowed the appeal and remanded to the trial court for holding a fresh enquiry to ascertain the welfare of child sans legal rights of the parties. While remitting the case to the trial court this court did not disturb the custody of the child and thus the minor continued staying with his mother who is the appellant herein. After the remand, the learned trial court allowed both the parties to lead their respective evidence and thereupon disposed of the case by order 12.04.2013 holding that the claim of the wife as to financial soundness and accommodation for the child were contradictory and so it was directed that the custody of the child be given to the father who is in better financial condition to rear up the minor son. It is this judgment which is brought under challenge in the present appeal.

3. During pendency of this appeal, both the parties were called to this High Court and in camera proceeding was held in the Chambers of a Hon” ble Judge (not me). Appellant produced the minor child who was about 6 years at that time and the learned Judge talked to both the parties and the child. The order dated 21.02.2014 is relevant in this regard which is quoted below:

' 21.02.2014

Both the parties are present along with their learned counsel in my chamber at 1.45 p.m. The appellant has produced the minor child, who is aged about 6 (six) years. It is stated that he is presently studying in K.G. Class. I have talked to both the parties and the child. It appears that the child has been properly maintained by his mother and he has been admitted in school. Despite several attempts being made by the second party, the child refused to talk to him. The child even cried when the second party tried to embrace him. I feel that the child is comfortable and feels secured with his mother. Let this matter be listed on 19.03.2014 for orders.

Sd/-

C.R. Sarma

Judge'

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have perused lower courts records including evidence adduced by the parties.

5. The findings of the learned trial court are based on 5 (five) grounds in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment. It is held that the child was in the custody of father for initial 2 (two) years when he was looked after by the opposite party and his family members and there is no allegation that the child was not duly