The welfare of a minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes. Custody should not be altered when the child is well-adjusted in a stable environment and the claimant is involved in serious criminal litigation that poses a potential risk to the child's development.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2023 (decree signed on 10.07.2023) passed by Shri Satyakam Priyadarshi, learned District Judge-II, Khunti in Guardianship Case No. 01 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant for declaration of the appellant as the guardian of her two minor children has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court.

4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had filed a suit u/s 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for declaring the petitioner as the guardian of her minor children, in which, it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party on 09.05.2012 and after marriage the petitioner started residing at her matrimonial house. After spending a couple of months, the petitioner came to know that her husband is of unsound mind and at times he gets attack of insanity and was undergoing treatment from psychiatrist. The opposite party is unemployed and the family meets its expenditure from the income from rent from their small building consisting of some shops. Despite such odds the petitioner tried to adjust in her matrimonial house where her father-in-law also lived with them. Out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the opposite party a daughter was born on 13.03.2013 who was named, Shirin Khan while a son was born on 11.10.2014 named, Ridan Khan. Both the children are school going and are attending a school called Bal Niketan at Torpa. It has been stated that since the opposite party did not keep well due to his mental health the petitioner used to look after her children and also take care of their studies. On 08.12.2018, the petitioner was informed by the opposite party that her father-in-law has died and on hearing the news relatives and friends started gathering at the house. The brother-in-law of the deceased father-in-law of the petitioner also came from Gaya and lodged an FIR at Torpa Police Station alleging the petitioner of committing the murder of her father-in-law. The petitioner was taken into custody on 13.12.2018 and was granted bail on 22.04.2019. After her release the petitioner had gone to her matrimonial house where she was not allowed to enter by the opposite party and his relatives and was also not allowed to meet her minor children and though the petitioner had met the opposite party at Ranchi a few times but she was never taken to Torpa. The petitioner and the opposite party had last met on 02.09.2019 at a public place while the children were not brought by the opposite party and the opposite party had flatly refused to allow the petitioner to meet the children. The father of the petitioner is working in Saudi Arabia while her mother resides at Gaya with her younger sister and brother. The petitioner is at present staying at Gaya at her parents’ place and is earning her livelihood by being engaged in tailoring. The opposite party is not competent to act as a guardian to the children owing to his mental condition.

5. On being noticed the opposite party had appeared and filed a written statement wherein he has denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner against him. The children are happy in the company of