Welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, outweighing the rights of parents. Proper guardianship requires evaluation of living conditions and educational opportunities.

JUDGMENT :

(Praveer Bhatnagar, J.)

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Family Court, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court' for short) whereby, the application of the respondent paternal grandfather filed under sections 6 and 25 of the Guardians And Wards Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short) was allowed and, the Court directed the appellant mother to hand over the custody of Master X to the respondent and further authorised the limited visiting rights to the appellant.

2. Admittedly, minor X is the appellant's son and paternal grandson of the respondent (father-in-law of the appellant).

3. The operative part of the order reads as follows:-

^^16½ mijksDr laiw.kZ foospu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ Hkhde flag dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g izkFkZuk i=] vo;Ld ckyd fd'ku iq= Lo-usehpan dh vfHkj{kk ds lanHkZ esa fuEu fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS %&

1-izkFkhZ Hkhde flag dks vius iq= usehpan o lqeu ds uqRQs ls mRiUu larku ukckfyx fd'ku iq= Lo-usehpan dh mfpr ns[kHkky] dY;k.k ,oa ykyu&ikyu gsrq fof/kd laj{kd fu;qDr fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ vius ikS= fd’ku dh f'k{kk] [kku&iku] LokLF; ,oa dY;k.k dk iwjk /;ku j[ksxkA

2- vizkFkhZ lqeu fd'ku ls izR;sd jfookj dks ,oa /kkfeZd R;kSgkjksa ij izkFkhZ dks iwoZ lwpuk nsdj izkFkhZ ds ?kj ls ckgj fey ldsxh vkSj vodk'k ds fnu cPps dks vius lkFk ?kqekus] euksjatu ;k [kjhnnkjh ds fy;s ckgj ys tk ldsxh vkSj 'kke gksus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ ds ikl okfil ys vk;sxhA

3- dkykarj esa ;fn vizkFkhZ vkSj cPps fd’ku ds chp vkilh lkeatL; o izse fodflr gksrk gS vFkok ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu gksrk gS rks vizkFkhZ cPps dh vfHkj{kk ds lanHkZ esa bl vkns'k esa la'kks/ku gsrq izkFkZuk i= is'k dj ldsxhA

fu;ekuqlkj izek.k i= tkjh gksA^^

It is quintessential to narrate the brief facts to appreciate the findings arrived at by the Family Court:

4. The respondent filed an application under Sections 6 and 25 of the Act with the averments that master X, six years in age, is his grandson and son of deceased Nemichand. After getting married to his son, the appellant used to quarrel and desired to reside with her brother-in-law Ramnath. She repeatedly left the marital house without intimating her husband and often declined to come. She insisted on marrying Nemichand's brother Yogesh. During the lifetime of his son (since deceased), the appellant led an adulterous life with her brother-in-law and others, further forcing on to marry Nemichand's brother Yogesh. Thus, due to constant domestic conflicts, Nemichand committed suicide on 22.11.2016. After the death of the respondent's son, the appellant left the matrimonial house, leaving her minor son X with the paternal grandparents. The minor X was adequately nurtured and taken care of by the respondent.

5. After the death of her husband Nemichand, the appellant contacted marriage with Vishnu Mali, a resident of the village Holi Khirkiya and lived with him. Vishnu Mali murdered his first wife and had two children with his first marriage and is a man of the criminal antecedent. It is also pleaded that the appellant threatened the respondent to implicate in the case of rape and, with the aid of the police, illegally acquired custody of the minor child. The appellant handed over the child to her brothers, namely Ramraj and Kaptan. Both the brothers are indulged in gambling and are drunkards. They do not allow the respondent to meet his grandson and extract money to allow