The father is the natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and the welfare of the minor is the paramount concern in custody decisions.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 12^th AUGUST 2025 JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Sachin Gite, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Machhindra Patil, learned Counsel appointed to represent the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner No.1 is father and the Petitioner No.2 is minor son. The challenge in this Civil Revision Application is to the order dated 23^rd April 2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nashik below Exhibit-13 in Petition-D No.14 of 2017. By the said order dated 23^rd April 2019, application bearing Exhibit-13 filed by the present Petitioners in said Petition-D No.14 of 2017 has been rejected. The Petitioners by the said application bearing Exhibit-13 sought relief that said Petition bearing Petition-D No.14 of 2017 filed by the Respondent-grandmother under the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act , 1956 (“the said Act”) be rejected as not maintainable.

3. Before considering the legality and validity of the impugned order, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects.:

i. On 5^th May 2015, marriage took place between the Petitioner No.1 and the daughter of the Respondent.

ii. The Petitioner No.2 is son of the Petitioner No.1 and deceased-Hemalata. Date of birth of the Petitioner No.2 is 6^th February 2016.

iii. On 21^st March 2017, said Hemlata, daughter of the Respondent suddenly passed away due to severe heart-

attack.

iv. On 8^th May 2017 as the Respondent and her other family members took custody of the minor son, an application has been filed by the Petitioner No.1 bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.739 of 2017 under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 and by the order dated 12^th May 2017, learned JMFC Court No.3, Nashik Road, Nashik directed that as the father is the natural guardian of the child, custody of the child be handed over to the Petitioner No.1.

v. Accordingly, the custody of the child i.e. the Petitioner No.2 was handed over to the Petitioner No.1.

vi. Thereafter, on 16^th June 2017, the Respondent filed proceedings under Section 6 of the said Act seeking custody of the minor child bearing Petition-D No.14 of 2017 in the Court of Family Court, Nashik.

vii.The Petitioner No.1 filed an application dated 7^th May 2018 bearing Exhibit-13 in said Petition-D No.14 of 2017 inter alia seeking that as per Section 6 of the said Act, father is the natural guardian and therefore, application filed by the Respondent-grandmother be dismissed.

viii. The said application bearing Exhibit-13 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 23^rd April 2019.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Gite, learned counsel of the applicants that the applicant no.1 is the father of the applicant no.2 and he is the natural guardian and therefore, the application seeking guardianship filed by the respondent i.e. grandmother is not maintainable. Apart from the same, it is the contention of Mr. Gite, learned Counsel that as the Petitioner No.2-minor son is staying at Pune, as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act , 1890 the Court at Nashik has no jurisdiction. On the other hand, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that even the grandmother is also entitled for said right and the Family Court, Nashik has jurisdiction to decide the said custody Petition.

5. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out certain provisions of the said Act.

6. (i) Section 4 of the said Act reads as under:

“4. Definitions.—In this Act,—

(a) “minor” means a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years;

(b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes—

(i) a natural guardian, (ii) a guardian appointed b