The financial status of the parties is not the sole criterion for determining custody. The child's best interest is paramount, and in this case, it was with the mother due to her financial security and the child's comfort with her.

M.M.S. BEDI, J.

1. Aggrieved by order dated January 15, 2014 passed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act by the Guardian Judge, Amritsar allowing the petition of the respondent-husband directing the custody of the minor daughter Ms.Parneet Kaur to be handed over to the respondent-husband with appellant-wife to exercise her visitation rights, the wife has preferred the present appeal.

2. The respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, for short ‘the Act’, claiming the custody of minor daughter alleging that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on January 15, 2006 and they cohabited together and out of their wedlock, a female child, namely, Parneet Kaur was born on July 19, 2007. The respondent averred that respondent and the appellant lived happily for sometime but after some time on account of undue interference by the parents of the appellant, their married life spoiled. It was alleged that the appellant started creating bitterness with the respondent as well as his family members at the instance of her parents. The behaviour of the appellant was not good towards the respondent-husband and was cruel. The appellant is allegedly a lady of loose tongue who insulted the respondent-husband in presence of his relatives and friends. The respondent alleged that during the pregnancy period the appellant went to her parental home on the pretext that she will return back after delivery but subsequently the appellant never came back to her matrimonial home. It is alleged by the respondent that he had approached the appellant a number of times to take her back after delivery but she never returned to the matrimonial home and refused to accompany him. All the attempts made by the respondent-husband to bring the appellant to the matrimonial home with the help of respectables turned futile as the appellant had refused to accompany him. The respondent claimed that he sent many gifts to the minor daughter but the appellant refused to accept the same and did not allow the respondent to meet the minor daughter. The respondent claimed that he has got great love and affection for the child. It was alleged in the petition that the atmosphere for the child in the company of the appellant is not congenial for her physical development. The appellant had no source of income to maintain the minor child whereas the respondent was a man of means having sufficient source of income to maintain and bring up the minor child as he was residing in a developed city Mohali which has got many educational institutions for the minor child. The family members of the appellant are involved in criminal cases and the development of the minor child was likely to be affected during her custody in the hands of the mother-appellant.

3. The appellant had contested the petition by taking preliminary objections that respondent was estopped by his conduct from filing the petition and that the petition was a counter blast to a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for short ‘2005 Act’. An application for maintenance had been filed by the appellant against the respondent. On merits, the appellant contested the petition claiming that the marriage was not a simple one rather it was solemnized with great pomp and show at Chandigarh and huge dowry was given as istridhan. The appellant was tortured by the respondent and his family members for bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent as well as his sister Manpreet Kaur @ Bobby and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry and they started quarreling with the appellant and torturing her. The respondent adopted cruel attitude towards the appellant on the very next day of her marriage. The sister of the respondent had dragged her to the kitchen and she was asked to cook food for the entire family. The parents of the appellant had given sum of Rs.3 lcs to her for purchase of Maruti Car but the respondent and his