The welfare of the child is paramount in guardianship cases, and custody should be determined in the best interest of the child, considering the adverse psychological effects and overall growth.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 13th March, 2012, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Guardianship Case No. 1F of 2009, whereby the custody of the child has been given in to the respondents herein, who are the great grandfather and father of the minor boy respectively. The appellants herein, who are the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of the child, have been directed to handover the minor son of their deceased daughter to the respondents herein, within one month of the judgment, giving them only the liberty to interact with the minor child, while the minor shall be residing of his father's place.

3. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The daughter of these appellants were married to the respondent No.2 Akhilesh Prasad and out of the wedlock, one son was born. It is alleged that the mother of the minor son was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and her dowry death was committed at her in-laws place. Thereafter, the child remained in custody of his maternal grandfather and grandmother. It is the admitted case, as is apparent from the impugned judgment, that at the time of filing of the case and during the pendency of the case in the Court below, both the petitioners, i.e., the great grandfather as well as the father of the child were in judicial custody in connection with the criminal case, relating to dowry death of the mother. The Guardianship Case No. 1F of 2009 was filed stating that the wife and daughter-in-law of petitioner-respondent No.1 were living in the house and they were capable to keep the child with them, as they had sufficient means to maintain the child, whereas the maternal grandfather was having a small business of spices and he was not capable to up bring the child, giving proper food and looking after proper development of the child.

4. Upon notice, these appellants appeared in the Court below and filed their written statement, stating that they were fully capable to maintain the child and it was also averred that the petitioners had never visited the child, nor they had ever given any money for the maintenance of the minor. It was also stated that they were accused of committing the dowry death of the mother of the child and giving them the custody of the child was detrimental for the welfare of the child.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Court below, one of the issues being issue No. V,-"whether it is proper and safe for the life of the child in the custody of the petitioners against whom the case of dowry death of the mother of the child is going on?".

6. It appears from the impugned judgment that at the time of passing of the judgment, the issues were re-casted and in the aforesaid issue No. V, which was the most important issue to be decided in the case, was deleted.

7. It may be stated at this place itself that it is an admitted position by the learned counsels for the both the sides that the father of the minor son has since been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and his appeal is pending in this Court, in which, he has been granted bail.

8. The impugned judgment shows that three witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners-respondents in the Court below and two witnesses were examined on behalf of these appellants. The discussion of the evidence made by the Court below shows that there were extensive cross-examinations of the petitioners' witnesses on the point of dowry death of the deceased mother of the minor son, but the Court below has brushed aside those evidence, stating that the cross-examination is only confined mainly towards the alleged dowry death of the deceased mother. It also finds mentioned in the impugned judgment that it has come in the evidence that the petitioners-respondents had ne