The welfare of the child is paramount in determining custody, and the court must consider various factors including the child's age, sex, religion, and the character and capacity of the proposed guardian.

The appellant/husband has filed this appeal assailing the decree and judgment passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Perambalur made in G.W.O.P.No.6 of 2016 on 27.4.2018.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as under :

The petitioner/husband filed a petition under Sections 7 to 9 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking permanent custody of his minor son, namely, Harshan, who was three years at the time of filing of the petition and is around six years now.

3. The learned Principal District Judge, Perambalur, by decree and judgment dated 27.4.2018, rejected the petition filed by the appellant on the sole ground that the child was four years old and the respondent/mother is having sufficient means to take care of the interest of child. However, the appellant was permitted to see the child between 9 AM and 5 PM on Sundays.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that :

(i) the Court below erred in not considering the yardsticks contemplated under Section 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 while deciding the issue of custody of child;

(ii) The Court below failed to give importance to the “welfare of the child” and rather was carried away by the rights of the parents;

(iii) The Court below failed to take into account the wishes of the child and assess the psychological impact after obtaining the opinion of the Child Psychiatrist or a Welfare Worker.

6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent reiterated the reasons that weighed with the Court below in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. However, pending consideration of the appeal, upon persuasion by this Court, the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife have filed separate memorandums dated 19.12.2018 and 2.1.2019.

8. In the memorandum dated 19.12.2018, the appellant/husband made a plea that :

(a) Whenever the child gets school holiday, he should be allowed to stay with the appellant either at Chennai or Perambalur;

(b) The respondent (wife) should furnish details to the appellant that where the child is studying and where and with whom he is staying/living and her email id enabling the appellant to inform her in advance about his holidays details and arrival to his native place;

(c) The child should be allowed to have talk with the appellant, his father and mother through phone and video calls;

(d) Apart from School holidays, the child should be allowed to participate in family functions if any taken place in the appellant family; and

(e) The appellant will have holidays on 2.2.2019 to 6.2.2019 (Saturday to Wednesday), 5.6.2019 to 9.6.2019 (Wednesday to Sundary – Ramzan holidays) and 10.8.2019 to 13.8.2019 (Saturday to Tuesday). In those days the child may allowed to stay with the appellant at Chennai or Perambalur.

9. The respondent/wife in the memo filed on 2.1.2019, inter alia, raised the following plea :

(a) The passports of the respondent and her son, which are in the custody of the appellant, should be handed over to the respondent or to the custody of this Court, as the appellant may clandestinely take the minor child to Malaysia;

(b) The respondent/wife is agreeable to bringing the child only during weekends, as she is employed in Kochi and cannot get leave frequently;

(c) During the visits, the child should be allowed to stay with the appellant during night and travel tickets should be arranged by the appellant/husband; and

(d) The gold ornaments and other items belonging to the respondent/wife, as annexed to the memorandum, which are in the custody of the appellant/husband, should be returned to her forthwith. The appellant/husband was also required to return Rs.1,10,000/- which was taken by him from the respondent/wife.

10. The respondent/wife, ultimately, agreed to bring the child only in weekends (Saturdays and Sundays), as stated hereunder:

(i) 02.02.2