Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case concerns the custody and welfare of a minor child, Mariyam Parija, born on 10.11.2005, and the question of whether custody should be awarded to the mother (respondent) or the father and paternal grandparents (appellants) (!) .

2. The marriage between the respondent's daughter and the first appellant was initially a registered love marriage without the knowledge of the families, followed by a customary Muslim marriage (!) (!) .

3. The minor child has been living with the appellants (father and paternal grandparents) since birth, and the child has not recognized or identified the respondent (maternal grandmother), indicating a strong bond with the appellants (!) (!) .

4. The respondent alleged that her daughter was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants, which led to her daughter's suicide. However, the evidence does not substantiate these allegations, and the court found no proof of ongoing harassment or cruelty (!) (!) .

5. The trial court initially awarded custody to the respondent, citing the criminal case against the appellants and the alleged harassment, but this decision was challenged on appeal (!) (!) .

6. The appellate court emphasized that the paramount consideration in custody cases is the welfare of the child, including their comfort, health, education, and emotional well-being. The court noted that the child was comfortable, well-cared-for, and had not been exposed to any ill-treatment (!) (!) .

7. The court observed that the criminal case pending against the appellants, especially relating to the daughter's death, should not be the sole factor in denying custody, but it is relevant to consider the child's best interests (!) (!) .

8. The court highlighted that the child's environment and the continuity of her upbringing with the appellants should be preserved, especially since she has been living with them since birth and is thriving in that environment (!) (!) .

9. The respondent did not take steps to visit or see the child after her daughter's death, and her knowledge of the child's environment was limited, which was viewed unfavorably (!) (!) .

10. The court reiterated that the child's wishes, if they are old enough to express an intelligent preference, should be considered, but in this case, the child was too young to articulate such a preference (!) .

11. Ultimately, the court set aside the order appointing the respondent as guardian and granted custody to the appellants, emphasizing that the child's best interests and existing environment favor the appellants' custody (!) (!) .

12. The court clarified that the respondent remains entitled to seek visitation rights, which can be addressed separately through appropriate legal proceedings (!) .

In summary, the court prioritized the child's welfare, stability, and existing environment over the allegations made, and it concluded that the custody should remain with the appellants who have cared for her since birth.