Welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes; natural guardianship does not guarantee custody without proven benefits for the child's well-being.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2024 and the decree dated 23.11.2024 passed in Original Suit No.1136 of 2022 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court No.II, Dhanbad (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant for appointment of guardian of minor child, namely, Shivansh Sinha (in short, minor) and for custody and declaring him to be lawful guardian has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:

(i) The pleading of petitioner in brief is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Soni Kumari, daughter of the respondent in the year 2017. Out of the wedlock they have been blessed with one son, namely, Shivansh. It is further stated that on 31.05.2022 Soni Kumari @ Gudia, wife of the petitioner committed suicide.

(ii) It is pleaded that the respondent has filed a case u/s 306 IPC in Saraidhela P.S. Case No-107/22, GR. Case No.2018/22 in ST Case No-861/22 against the petitioner. The petitioner was in judicial custody since 02.06.2022 and, in the meanwhile, when he was in jail the respondents forcibly taken custody of the child of the petitioner and ruining the future of the minor child.

(iii) It is further stated that after taking in custody the respondent neglected to pay school fee of his son. His son is studying in DPS School, Class-Nursery.

(iv) It is alleged that after taking custody of the minor child the respondents have refused to hand over the custody of child to the petitioner who is non else but the real father of the minor child.

3. On the aforesaid ground, the petitioner-appellant, has, therefore, prayed for passing an order directing the respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child to him and to appoint him the guardian of the child.

4. It needs to mention herein that in Original Suit No.1136 of 2022 upon issuance of the notices, the respondents, who are the maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother of the minor (the respondents herein) have appeared and filed a written statement denying all the allegations levelled against them by the petitioner-appellant.

5. It is alleged in the written statement that the suit filed by petitioner/appellant is not maintainable either in law or in the fact and hence liable to be dismissed in Limine and the instant suit has been filed with an ulterior motive.

6. It is further stated that it is admitted fact that daughter of the respondents, namely, Soni Kumari was married to the petitioner. At the time of the marriage, the daughter of the respondent was employed as teacher in Central School, Chennai.

7. It is alleged that the petitioner used to torture Soni Kumari physically and mentally and demand her salaries failing which the petitioner had beaten her continuously.

8. It is stated that the matter was informed to Dhansar PS thereafter, spouses started living separately.

9. It is further stated that the respondent is a businessman and earning handsome amount and is