The welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration in custody matters, and it must be given effect to in its broadest sense, encompassing moral, religious, and ethical welfare.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - This Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 47 of Guardians and Wards Act 1890 by the appellant/father against the respondents, challenging the order dated 26/10/2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in M.J.C. No.04/2016, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant is allowed to the extent that he can meet his sons once in a month for four hours and he may talk twice on phone in a month.

2. The facts of the case in short are that the appellant and late Riturani were legally wedded on 25/05/2001. Thereafter, due to their wedlock, they got two sons, one Dev Goswami and Yash Goswami, who are in custody of the respondents. The date of birth of Dev and Yash are 10/02/2004 and 07/04/2005 respectively. Just after birth of aforesaid sons, the wife of the appellant became seriously ill. Despite various treatments, she passed away on 28/09/2012. After death of appellant's wife, appellant sent his sons to the respondents to change the atmosphere. Thereafter, he went many a times to get back his sons but respondents refused the appellant and treated him improperly. Hence, the appellant filed application under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, which was registered as M.J.C. No.04/2016, wherein the impugned order has been passed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order impugned is against the provisions of law. The appellant is the natural guardian of his minor sons. The appellant is an Officer in Indian Army and is competent to maintain his sons properly. Due to aforesaid order, the appellant has been deprived from his paternal obligations. The appellant is seeking custody of his sons with a view to make their future bright. He belongs to a reputed family. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that trial Court in paragraph 23 of its order has observed that in examination, the minor sons have specifically stated that they do not want to reside with their father and want to reside with the respondents. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents prayed to save the welfare of the sons and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Paragraph 23 of the impugned order specifically indicates that both the sons have stated that they do not want to reside with their father and want to reside with their maternal grandfather, maternal grandmother and maternal uncle. It has also come on record that the respondents are maintaining minor sons, Dev Goswami and Yash Goswami properly and they are having sufficient means to maintain Dev Goswami and Yash Goswami. It is also apparent that the respondents have taken care of minor sons' for their bright future.

7. In paragraph 7 of the impugned order, it is observed on the basis of evidence produced before the trial Court that the behaviour of the appellant's father with the appellant's wife late Riturani was not proper and the appellant/husband had illicit relation with some other lady. His behaviour was very furious towards his late wife.

8. The aforesaid facts remained unreverted. The evidence produced by the appellant was rightly disbelieved by the trial court and evidence produced by the respondents was rightly accepted by the trial Court.

9. On perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1890 what clearly emerges is that the matter relating to the custody of a minor child is not only an overwhelming but the paramount consideration that must weigh with the court when examining the "welfare of the minor" and the said term must be given effect to in its broadest sense. At the time of appointing or declaring any person as the guardian of a minor, it is not the rights of the parents or relatives that should concern the court. The paramount c