The welfare of the child is of paramount consideration in custody matters, and financial condition alone cannot be a ground to deny custody to the mother, the natural guardian.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by Sangeeta, the mother of the minor child Dhanveer Singh, impugning the order dated 19.11.2018 vide which petition filed by her under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act 1 ) for getting the custody of her minor child was dismissed by the trial Court.

2. Few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as pleaded in the petition filed by the appellant-mother before the learned Court below may be noticed.

3. Marriage between the appellant and Amandeep Singh, son of the respondents, was solemnized on 13.04.2013 and out of the wedlock one son namely Dhanveer Singh was born on 01.10.2014. Soon after the marriage, husband of the appellant went abroad leaving her behind at her matrimonial home. During his absence, the appellant-wife was ill treated by respondents No.1 and 2 and her sisters-in-law as they were dissatisfied with the dowry given to her at the time of marriage. The appellant-wife tolerated and kept up with the cruel and abusive behaviour of the respondents with a hope that good sense would prevail upon them some day but in vain. The husband of the appellant came to India on 16.05.2017. At the instigation of the respondents and his sisters, he demanded that the appellant-wife get Rs.10 lakhs for financing the construction of his sister's house. However, she expressed her inability as her father had already expired. On 06.06.2017 on being physically assaulted by her husband and the respondents, she submitted a representation before the Deputy Superintendent of Police giving details of the incident. A compromise was subsequently arrived at on 14.06.2017 between the parties at Women's Police Station where the husband as well as the respondents assured that they would not repeat their inhuman behaviour towards the appellant-wife. The same was however, short lived. On 27.06.2017, after being subjected to physical and mental torture, the appellant was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 28.06.2017 but not before forcibly taking her minor son Dhanveer Singh, away from her. Even though the appellant-wife and her family continuously and persistently made efforts for reconciliation with her husband and the respondents, as well as, made efforts to meet her infant child but the same met with no success. It was in this background that the appellant was left with no other option but to file a petition under Section 25 of the Act for obtaining the custody of the minor child. 3. Upon notice, respondents filed their written statement before the learned Court below wherein they refuted and denied all the allegations of the appellant. They submitted that the appellant in fact was estopped by her own act and conduct to seek the custody of the minor son. It was submitted that the minor child Dhanveer Singh was being very well looked after by the respondents, who were showering him with all the love and affection and also taking care of his education. They rather alleged that on 28.06.2017, the appellant-wife after creating nuisance left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. A panchayat, which was subsequently convened to bring about an amicable settlement failed on account of the unbecoming behaviour of the appellant and her parents. It was submitted that in fact the appellant herself had abandoned her infant child in the matrimonial home. It was also submitted that an application containing false allegations was moved by the appellant-wife before Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Dasuya in pursuance to which the minor child was produced before SDM, Dasuya wherein the minor child himself stated before the SDM that he would want to go with his grandmother. Thereafter vide order dated 11.08.2017, SDM Dasuya ordered that the custody of the minor son Dhanveer Singh be allowed to continue with the grandparents i.e. respondents.

4. The controversy between the parties led to framing of the following issues by the learned trial Co