The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in deciding custody disputes, and the child's right to know her birth parents is essential.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Chandra learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kavish Suhail learned Advocate, Sri Atul Dayal learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Komal Mehrotra and Sri S.F.A. Naqvi learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Ahmad Faizan, learned Advocate for the parties in both the connected appeals.

2. These two connected appeals have been filed by both sides challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Aligarh in Misc. Petition No.73 of 2019 filed under Section 8, 10 & 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act' 1890 (in short as 1890' Act. The appellants in First Appeal No.510 of 2022 are applicants of the misc. case filed under the Act' 1890 praying for custody of the minor child. The appellant in connected First Appeal No.485 of 2022 are aggrieved by the aforesaid decision only to the extent of the findings on issue No.2 where the applicants have been provided visitation right/custody of the child for a period of 15 days in one year during summer vacation in the school of the minor child till she attains majority.

3. The applicants/appellants are natural guardians, biological parents of the child who was about five years of age on the date of the application seeking custody of the child. The respondents/appellants in the connected Appeal No.485 of 2022 are maternal uncle and aunt of the child, the respondent No.1 being real brother of the appellant No.1. As stated in the application filed by the appellants, the minor child was born on 16.12.2013 at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and a birth certificate was issued by the concerned authority at Jeddah wherein names of the applicants/appellants as parents of the child have been mentioned. The respondents herein are issue-less. Initially one Mohd. Zaheer, brother of the respondent No.2 namely sister-in-law of the applicants, gave them his minor girl child for about three months and later took her away. The respondents went under depression on account of the said incident.

4. When the applicants came to India after birth of their girl child on 11.03.2014, the respondents expressed their desire to look after the minor child for sometime so that they may overcome the crisis. It was then agreed that the minor would be in custody of the respondents and whenever the applicants come to Delhi they would be spending time with their daughter and the child would remain in touch with her parents through audio and video calls. On the request of the respondents, the passport and birth certificate of the minor child was handed over to the respondents so that they may not face any inconvenience in keeping the child with them. Believing her brother, the appellant No.1 namely Ms. Nasrin Begum had signed a written document wherein custody of the minor child was given for the time being to the respondents. The applicants/appellants then left for Saudia Arabia. It is stated that this arrangement was made by the appellants only as humanitarian consideration, to help brother and sister-in-law of the appellant No.1 to overcome the emotional crisis faced by them.

5. In the year 2015, during vacation when the applicants/appellant came to India, they felt change in the behaviour of the respondents. Again in the year 2017, during vacation, they came to India with the main object of meeting their daughter and when they reached at the house of the respondents, the respondents did not allow them (the appellants) to meet the child. Being family members, the applicants/appellants tried to persuade the respondents through elders in the family. The appellant No.1 in the meantime, gave birth to the fourth child on 07.05.2018. During this period and thereafter, the appellant No.1 talked to her brother namely the respondent No.1 to take her child back with her to Saudi Arabia and requested respondent No.1 to give back the passport of the minor child. The respondent gave passport and photographs of the minor child to the appellant No.1 and that wi