The paramount consideration for the welfare of the child is crucial in custody cases, and the court must prioritize the child's best interests, education, and family environment.

RAJESH BINDAL, J. - The father and paternal grand parents of the child, namely, Aditya Partap Neb, whose custody is involved, have filed the present appeal challenging judgment dated 22.3.2010, of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur in an application filed by the respondent-mother under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, `the Act').

2. Briefly, the facts are that marriage of appellant No. 1 was solemnised with the respondent on 9.12.2001. A male child, namely, Aditya Partap Neb was born out of the wedlock on 15.1.2004. Initially, the parties lived at Ludhiana. The parents of the father are based at Batala. Later on, parents of the child shifted to London in June/July, 2006. The child at that time remained with the grand parents. He was taken to London on 27.6.2008 by the mother, but was brought back by the father on 21.8.2008. Almost since then, both the husband and wife are residing separate, though in London. It is claimed by the mother that after the child was brought back by the father from London, though she visited India number of times but the paternal grand parents of the child did not allow her to meet him. She filed a Habeas Corpus petition in July, 2009, which was disposed of with liberty to her to file petition under the Act. The same was filed in August 2009, which was decided in favour of the mother by the learned court below vide judgment dated 22.3.2010. It is this judgment which is impugned in the present appeal by the father and paternal grand parents of the child, the respondent being the mother.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that paramount consideration in any case regarding custody of a child is always his welfare. The learned court below has totally ignored these principles.

Without recording any finding thereon, it directed the appellants to hand over the custody of the child to the respondent. The child is happily residing with the appellants. It is not a case where the custody of the child was to remain with the party which has approached the court. Rather, it was a case where the custody was to be transferred. The child mentally has adjusted with the grand parents as almost from the very beginning he is living there. The court as such has not found any fault in the manner the child was being brought up by the appellants. He further submitted that the mother now is seeking custody of the child, but she has in fact never spent any quality time with the child. During the period when the parents of the child were residing in London, the mother had been visiting India but she never stayed with the child. However, he did not dispute the facts, as narrated by the mother in her affidavit dated 6.12.2010 filed vide CM No. 31216-CII of 2010 showing the period during which the respondent visited India.

4. He further submitted that though the child had been brought back to India on 21.8.2008, but a petition for Habeas Corpus was filed by the mother only in July, 2009 about one year later. The mother did not come to India immediately. Till such time the petition for custody was filed, she made no efforts to even see the child what to talk of seeking his custody. Psychological evaluation of the child as well as parents and grand parents may be got done to see, where the welfare of the child lies and where he wants to live. He further argued that in case the custody of the child is given to the mother, she would definitely take him to London.

5. The father even if granted visiting rights will not be able to enforce the same in London, as there is no reciprocity for enforcement of the decree between the two countries. Even in London, the mother is not having any permanent home. On account of her job requirement, she has to regularly go to various other foreign countries and in her absence, there would be none to take care of the child. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112 and Mausami Moitra Gang