The welfare of the child is the primary consideration in custody disputes, and the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act prevail over personal laws.

Ramakrishnan, J.

The petitioner in I.A.No.826/2014 in OP.No.477/2014 on the file of the Family Court, Attingal has filed this original petition challenging the order passed by the Family Court in that application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner and the respondent were husband and wife and both belong to Muslim religion and while they were living together, the minor child by name Muthaleev @ Ali Hyder was born to them. Thereafter their relationship strained and they started residing separately and later the marriage was dissolved by pronouncing talaq. According to the petitioner, even at that time, the respondent had abandoned the child while he was aged only 1 = years and left with another person. But at the time of divorce, considering the welfare of the child and the age of the child, as per an agreement, the custody of the child was given to the mother. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, she had left the child with her parents and converted to Hinduism and married another person and now she is living with that person. In the meantime, according to the petitioner, he got custody of the child. But, according to the respondent, the child was forcibly taken by the petitioner and a crime was registered in respect of the same and she moved this Court by filing a writ of habeas corpus as W.P.(Crl)No.200/2014 and as per Ext.P8 order interim custody of the child was handed over to the mother leaving open rights of the parties to decide custody of the child to the Family Court. Accordingly, the petitioner filed O.P.No.477/2014 for declaring him as the legal guardian and also permanent custody of the child and filed I.A.No.826/2014 for interim custody of the child. The Family Court by Ext.P11 order granted interim custody of the child to the mother/respondent with visitorialal rights to the petitioner on the first Saturday of every month between 10 a.m and 4 p.m in the premises of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta and this order is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, it appears that grandparents with whom the child was at that time had appeared before this Court and handed over custody of the child to the petitioner herein and as per order dated 8.8.2014 custody of the child was given to the father. But it is seen from the subsequent order dated 18.11.2014 that the child was produced by the grandparents on the basis that the child was handed over to them by the petitioner on the basis of an oral agreement and as suggested by this Court the custody of the child was given to the parents of the respondent. But on that day neither the petitioner nor the respondent were present. So this Court has directed the custody to be kept with the parents of the respondent until further orders. Thereafter as per order dated 21st November, 2014, the parents of the respondent are directed to produce the child on the next hearing date and accordingly on 26th November, 2014 the child was handed over to the petitioner by the grandparents. The petition filed by the grandparents to get themselves impleaded seeking temporary custody of the child was disposed of by this Court directing the grandparents to file an application before the Family Court as they were not parties to the original proceedings. Now as per the orders of this Court, the child is with the father.

4. It is on the basis of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that if the mother of the child is present in court, the entire dispute can be resolved by referring the matter for mediation and accordingly, the matter was referred for mediation but the matter was not settled in the mediation.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the background of the respondent and also some observations made by the court below regarding the antecedents of the respondent, the court b