The central legal principle established in the judgment is the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child in determining custody disputes.

1. The dispute in this case is regarding custody of minor Amrik Singh alias Biiti (hereinafter referred to as the "minor"). He is son of appellant-Balbir Kaur. Gurdev Singh was the husband of the appellant. Respondent No. 1 Jit Kaur is mother of Gurdev Singh and respondent No. 2 Kulwant Singh is brother of Gurdev Singh. Respondent No. 3 is minor himself.

2. The appellant was married to Gurdev Singh in the year 1991. The minor was born on 5-12-1992. In the initial period after the marriage, appellant and Gurdev Singh lived together. Appellant gave birth to two children, the minor and a daughter. However, dispute started between them which ultimately resulted in appellants leaving her matrimonial house and going to her parental house with her daughter. Minor remained at the husbands house. Subsequently, Gurdev Singh committed suicide and it is the case of the respondents that he committed suicide because of the quarrels with the appellant and he left a suicide note also and a case under S. 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against her and her parents.

3. Appellant filed a petition for declaration that she is a natural guardian of the minor and also his person, property and custody.

4. Evidence was led before the trial Court and it at the conclusion of the trial by the impugned judgment dismissed the petition. This appeal is, therefore, filed by the appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. I have also called the minor in the Chamber. He did not want to go to the house of the appellant.

7. Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is the mother and she is entitled to the custody of the minor and that she is able to keep him properly. The reasons for separation of the appellant from her husband given by the appellant are not admitted by the respondents. However, I do not think that they should have any bearing on the merits of this case. However, some allegations may be noted. According to the appellant her husband was working as a Beldar in Ranjit Sagar Dam and lived at Ucha Thara Colony and that he had left the appellant and his children in his native house at Sham Churasi with his mother and brother. In December, 1995, he came to his village and on the instigation of his mother he gave, abused, slaps and fist blows to the appellant and went back to his work saying that she must leave his house and return only if she brought money, colour TV and Scooter from her parents. Three days thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 gave slaps, fist blows and gave her push due to which she fell on the ground and sustained injuries. Father of the appellant was called and she and her daughter were sent with him to her parents house and the respondents retained the minor.

8. In the written statement it is contended that the appellant always quarrelled with her husband and levelled false allegations against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is also contended that in June, 1996, appellant jumped from the roof for the purpose of committing suicide but she levelled false allegation against respondent No. 1 that she pushed her from the roof. Appellant also levelled false allegations against respondent No. 2 and always insisted to live with her husband at the place of his service but the husband showed his inability to keep the appellant and the children with him and due to this the appellant always took quarrel with her husband and ultimately on 12-11-1996 the husband committed suicide.

9. In this case the contest is, therefore, between the mother of the minor and grand-mother and uncle of the minor. As mentioned earlier what transpired between the parties prior to the death of her husband will have no bearing on the merits of the case, the reason being that the question to be seen is who should be given the custody of the minor. The appellant is not wanting to stay at the house of the respondents. Therefore, reasons for the quarrel have lost importance. In other words, it may be men