Welfare of the child is of paramount consideration.

N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.

This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.M.A.No.517 of 1995. The appellant herein is the wife and the respondent is her husband.

2. The husband filed a petition under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act on the file of District Court, Sivaganga against his wife praying for the custody of their child. The petitioner and the respondent were married in the year 1986, and one male child was born on 11.4.1988. It is the case of the husband that at the instigation of the mother and brother of his wife, misunderstanding arose between them and the wife left the matrimonial home on 2.7.1991 taking the child with her. Subsequently, some mediators intervened to resolve the dispute and the dispute was resolved and she came back to the matrimonial home to join her husband on 13.4.1991 and lived with him. She again left the matrimonial home on 2.7.1991 taking the child with her. The husband filed H.M.O.P.No.8 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakottai for restitution of conjugal rights. On 14.9.1992, both the parties filed a joint endorsement before the Court and on the basis of the joint endorsement, the H.M.O.P. No.8 of 1991 was dismissed.

3. According to the husband, the wife is employed in a bank which is situate 15 kilometres away from her mother's house and she used to leave for office at 8 a.m. and return only at 8 p.m. daily and the wife is not physically present all the day to look after the child. According to the husband, the child was subject to ill-treatment and torture at the hands of the mother of the wife and they were not looking after the child properly. Hence, the husband filed the petition for the custody of the child stating that he would take care of the child with the help of his mother.

4. The wife has filed a counter affidavit denying all the averments made in the petition filed by the husband. According to her, the husband has committed breach of the joint endorsement made in H.M.O.P.no.8 of 1991. According to her, she is employed in a bank drawing a decent salary and she is living along with her mother and brother and his wife and they are all attached to her son. She has stated that she is taking care of the child and giving him education and the child was admitted in a reputed school at Tuticorin and the child is also doing well in education.

5. Learned District Judge, after considering the evidence, held that the respondent father has the right to keep the custody of the child and the interest and future of the child would be safe in the hands of the father and ordered the petition as prayed for. It is against the order of the District Judge, an appeal was preferred and a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the child is not of tender age to be retained in the custody of the mother and the mother has not complied with the terms of the joint endorsement and she is employed and therefore she cannot take care of the child and there are no special circumstances in favour of the mother than the father to entrust the child with the mother. Learned Single Judge held that there is no denial regarding the injury sustained by the child when the child was in the custody of the mother and the incident reflected badly on the nature of the care bestowed on the child by the mother. In this view of the matter and taking into consideration the overall circumstances, learned single Judge held that the right of the father to look after the child is better than that of the mother and in the better interest of the minor child, the custody of the child should be given to the father. Learned Single Judge upheld the order of the learned District Judge and dismissed the appeal. It is against the judgment, the present appeal has been preferred.

6. We heard Mr.Sundar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.AR.L.Sunderesan, learned counsel for the respondent. The law on this topic is well-settled by several decisions of the