The welfare of a minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and the rights of a natural guardian are subordinate to what is most conducive for the child’s emotional growth and development, including the importance of keeping siblings together within their immediate family.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 06.12.2022 (decree signed on 20.12.2022) passed in Original Suit No. 273/2019 by Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Deoghar whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondent herein under Section 7 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to hand over the custody of the minor Aarav Shandilya to the respondent within a period of 30 days of passing of the order.

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 (respondent herein) had filed a suit under Section 7 and 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act in which it has been stated that out of the wedlock of the petitioner with Purnima Jha, two children were born; a daughter named Kavya Shandilya aged 7 years and a son named Aarav Shandilya aged 4 months. The birth of Aarav had taken place at Deoghar under the supervision of Dr. Sadhana Patralekh. The wife of the petitioner had died due to complications at childbirth. After the completion of the Shradh ceremony of the wife of the petitioner, the respondent and his other relatives had forcibly taken away the minor child of the petitioner and presently he is in custody of the respondent at Deoghar. The ordinary residence of the minor son of the petitioner is at Deoghar. The petitioner is in service having a handsome salary and is a well-educated person having a sound family background. The petitioner is keeping his minor daughter with him and is properly nourishing her with the assistance of his parents and siblings. The petitioner has not solemnised another marriage and does not intend to do so in future. The betterment of the child will always be under the guardianship of the petitioner and the respondents are not competent to maintain the child having various liabilities and the respondent himself has a serious heart problem. It has been stated that on several occasions, the respondent was requested by the petitioner and his other relatives to hand over the custody of the child to them, but the respondent had refused without any valid reason.

5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed his written statement in which the allegations levelled by the petitioner has been denied. It has been stated that the death of the wife of the petitioner was on account of the negligence of the petitioner as he did not follow the advice of the doctor. The actual fact is that the mother of the minor child died within six days of his birth and since then the child is with the respondent who is providing proper nourishment and is also taking care of the child. Apart from the respondent, the minor is also looked after by his grandmother and aunt and all facilities are being provided to him. The respondent has come to know from reliable sources that the petitioner has kept his seven-year-old daughter Kavya Shandilya at the house of his elder sister. The parents of the petitioner are aged persons and both require attention and it is not possible for them to look after the welfare of the child and the petitioner also is busy working in a factory of