The paramount interest of the minor is the primary criteria for deciding custody and guardianship of a minor, and the welfare and interest of the child should be the first and paramount consideration in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

Present first appeal under section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1890") has been filed by Latoori Singh, challenging judgement dated 23.1.2018 and decree dated 5.2.2018, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in Suit No. 25 of 2015 (Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Latoori Singh) under section 25 of Act 1890, whereby and whereunder, plaintiff-respondent Smt. Sushila Devi has been appointed as guardian of minor Kuldeep and further defendant-appellant has been directed to hand over custody of minor Kuldeep to plaintiff-respondent Sushila Devi.

2. Brief facts shorn of unnecessary details giving rise to present first appeal are that marriage of plaintiff-respondent was solemnized with Subhash chandra S/o defendant-appellant Latoori Singh in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From aforesaid wedlock, son Kuldeep was born. Unfortunately, Subhash chandra father of minor Kuldeep died on 7.10.2012. Upon death of Subhash chandra S/o defendant-appellant Latoori Singh, custody of minor Kuldeep was retained by defendant-appellant whereas, Smt. Sushila Devi, mother of minor Kuldeep, went to her parental home. On 27.8.2016, plaintiff-respondent Sushila Devi filed Suit No.25 of 2015 (Smt. Sushila Devi Vs, Latoori Singh) under section 25 of Act, 1890 for appointment of herself as Guardian of minor Kuldeep and also for custody of minor.

3. According to plaint allegations, marriage of plaintiff-respondent Sushila Devi was solemnized with Subhash Chandra in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, a son, Kuldeep, was born. Unfortunately, Subhash Chandra husband of plaintiff-respondent Sushila Devi died on 7.10.2012 in an accident. Defendant-appellant is allege to have got some papers signed from plaintiff-respondent as well as her father and on false pretext that health of plaintiff-respondent is not keeping good, retained custody of minor Kuldeep. Upon regaining health, plaintiff-respondent came to her marital home on 12.8.2015 but was not allowed by her in-laws to enter the house. According to plaintiff-respondent, it is alleged that defendant-appellant on the basis of certain papers which were got signed by him from plaintiff-respondent and her father, pleaded that plaintiff-respondent has no concern with minor as well as property of her late husband. Photo copy of alleged paper was handed over to plaintiff-respondent on 12.8.2015. On basis of the same, defendant-appellant is alleged to have denied custody of minor Kuldeep to his natural guardian i.e. mother, Smt. Sushila Devi, on 20.8.2015. Accordingly, plaintiff-respondent, Smt. Sushila Devi, filed Suit No. 25 of 2015 (Smt. Shusheels Devi Vs. Sri Latoori Singh) for custody of minor Kuldeep and also for appointment of herself as Guardian of minor Kuldeep.

4. Suit filed by plaintiff-respondent was contested by defendant-appellant. He filed a written statement dated 29.9.2015 (Paper No. 10-a) whereby, not only plaint allegations were denied but also additional pleas were raised. According to defendant-appellant, allegations made in plaint were false. Plaintiff-respondent herself went to her parental home along with her jewellery, goods and utensils. A panchayat was held in the presence of Nawab Singh, Pooran Singh, Swadan Singh, Brijesh Kumar, Prajapalan Verma and Ex-M.L.A. Ramswaroop wherein, plaintiff-respondent expressed her desire to live at her parental home. Accordingly, plaintiff-respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- cash by defendant-appellant as well as entire amount payable under L.I.C. Policy of deceased Subhas chandra i.e. Rs. 2,05,000/-. Plaintiff-respondent further agreed for remarriage and gave custody of minor Kuldeep in his favour. A memorandum to that effect was prepaed and noterised on 27.7.2015. It was thus pleaded by defendant-appellant, that plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to the custody of minor Kuldeep nor is she entitled to be appointed as her guardian.

5. After exchange