The welfare of the minor children is a paramount consideration in custody cases, and the conduct of the parents, including past criminal activities, is taken into account in determining custody.

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

This time barred misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant Naurang Ram under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 against the judgment dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No.30/2016 by which the learned court dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 25 of the Act of 1890.

2. As per the facts of the case, the appellant being father filed an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1890 before the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar for custody of his minor sons Harish 9 years and Dheeraj 8 years stating therein that marriage of appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 30.6.2004 at Dadulshahar and from the wedlock of appellant with the respondent, two sons Harish and Dheeraj were born and they are residing with the respondent wife. According to the appellant the respondent filed a complaint of domestic violence against the appellant and his family members, which is said to be pending in which false allegations were levelled that appellant is having 68 bighas of land in his name and respondent wife is blackmailing the appellant and his family members so as to grab the said land in which the parents of the respondent are also involved. So many allegations are levelled by the appellant against the respondent for claiming custody of his two minor sons.

3. The learned Family Court rejected the application on the ground that appellant was arrested in connection with offence under Section 304B IPC for the death of his first wife in which he remained in custody, but ultimately acquitted from the charge and another FIR was registered against him in which after investigation FR was given, but the learned Family Court while framing two issues held that due to conduct of the appellant, he is not entitled for custody of two sons Harish and Dheeraj because the welfare of both the sons is in residing with the mother.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the allegation under Section 304 IPC was totally false, therefore, after trial, he was acquitted from the charge levelled against him and in another case, FR was filed after investigation, therefore, these two cases cannot be treated as ground to deny the custody of two sons. The learned Family Court has committed a grave error while rejecting his application for custody because being father, the appellant is entitled for custody of both the sons.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant time barred appeal, we are of the opinion that after discussing the entire evidence and the conduct of the appellant, the application has been rejected looking to the welfare of both the sons, therefore, there is no question to quash the order impugned because the order has been passed after considering entire evidence so also considering the conduct of the appellant with regard to his criminal activities.

6. In view of the above, the instant misc. appeal listed in the defect side is hereby dismissed.